Liberate a "Yes on 22" sign today.
Diane Colson
>Bill Lindemann wrote the quoted material below:
>
>" If Republicans, right-wingers, Mormons, cops, etc.
>" do it every day and get away with it, then it's high time our side joined
>" the fun. [....]
>
>A side note here: The Mormons are so hell-bent on making their twisted
>religious cult into the law of the land that about 15 years ago they
>managed to get the Utah legislature to allow the private security force at
>Brigham Young University in Provo to have full police powers.
Pardon me, but that is a blatant falsehood, no doubt generated by degenerate outcasts
like you.
Post the proof, please.
>Thus, a religiously owned private rent-a-cop force has the full power of
>any police officer to arrest people throughout Utah (and by extension any
>other state where reciprocal powers are authorized).
>
>This is the church group that has refused to follow the law of the land
>banning polygamy.
And that was many, many years ago as, you must know already.
Besides, the niether the Church, nor its congregation, have ever had to lie about
this, as you worshippers of a demented disgusting cult, Homosexuality, have to
resort to doing all the time.
Why in the world would you have to drag out century old history ?
Is it a cheap attempt to justify the criminal behavior, stealing signs on private
property, of your sick, demented brethren here, in addition to the many lies
you sick, twisted people are well known for speaking ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defend Marriage-Vote for Decency- Vote "YES" on 22 - March 7, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Higdon
> Oh, sure, polygamy has been banned by the Mormon church. Sure it has.
In all fairness, the practice of polygamy is an offense punished invariably
by excommunication by the Utah church. Splinter groups may still practice
it, but not the organization at issue here.
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
Diane Colson
>in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye wrote:
>
>> Oh, sure, polygamy has been banned by the Mormon church. Sure it has.
>
>In all fairness, the practice of polygamy is an offense punished invariably
>by excommunication by the Utah church.
Yes, that is so.
There are none so blind as those who will not see, so I thank you for pointing
that fact out to Mr Kaye, Mr Higdon.
>Splinter groups may still practiceit, but not the organization at issue here.
This is correct. At least one of you people knows the truth !
Yes, the issue was and is why Gays feel it is necessary to steal political signs off
the property of those they disagree with.
Why, if you Gay people are so sure of your case, do you feel you need to resort to
such low-down, underhanded measures ?
Do you really think that the public is going to stand for a bunch of criminal
sneak-thieves, much less support your political wishes, if you continue to act like
children ?
What is wrong with you people ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defend Marriage-Vote for Decency- Vote "YES" on Prop. 22 - March 7, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kaye
" Pardon me, but that is a blatant falsehood, no doubt generated by
" degenerate outcasts like you.
I'm neither a degenerate nor an outcast. The story was reported by either
AP or UPI at the time and appeared in the SF Chronicle or Examiner about
15 years ago.
" And that was many, many years ago as, you must know already.
Oh, sure, polygamy has been banned by the Mormon church. Sure it has.
While "official" church doctrine might say that polygamy is not okay, it
is practiced by as many people in Oregon, Montana, and Utah as it's ever
been. Hell, 60 Minutes has had stories on it, Harper's Magazine has had
stories on it. It still exists and is practiced.
" Why in the world would you have to drag out century old history ?
Because it's not a century old. It's going on today.
--
(C) 2000 At age four, Liberace could
David Kaye play almost any tune by ear
dk at wco.com
Keith Wood
David Kaye wrote:
> Oh, sure, polygamy has been banned by the Mormon church. Sure it has.
> While "official" church doctrine might say that polygamy is not okay, it
> is practiced by as many people in Oregon, Montana, and Utah as it's ever
> been.
The fact is, however, that these are not members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamy is seen by the Church as
adultery, and those who engage in it are excommunicated.
Those polygamists you mention are members of splinter groups.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye wrote:
>
>> Oh, sure, polygamy has been banned by the Mormon church. Sure it has.
>
>In all fairness, the practice of polygamy is an offense punished invariably
>by excommunication by the Utah church. Splinter groups may still practice
>it, but not the organization at issue here.
Keep on being fair and recognize that the assertion coming out of
virtually ALL fundamentalist or otherwise high-octane religious groups
is that they and ONLY they have hold of the PERMANENT, FIXED and
ETERNAL truth -- this. in this matter, includes the Mormons and
clearly they HAVE changed the eternal truth handed down by GOD HIMSELF
in response to political pressures -- polygamy went early in the
process so that Utah could join the union and the recognition that
African Americans were fully entitled citizens came much more
recently.
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
Justice is not allowed to cast off her blindfold and
look down the pants of persons requesting a marriage
license to see if they are eligible.
Craig K. Gowens
-----------------------------------------------------
L. Michael Roberts
Diane Colson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
>
> >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye wrote:
<snip 2 the point>
>
> What is wrong with you people ?
Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs legislated into the
secular law of the land.
<sig snip>
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
frank w elliott jr
: On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:29:38 GMT, David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
:
: And that was many, many years ago as, you must know already.
:
: Besides, the niether the Church, nor its congregation, have ever had to lie about
: this, as you worshippers of a demented disgusting cult, Homosexuality, have to
: resort to doing all the time.
: Why in the world would you have to drag out century old history ?
:
This is painfully stupid. So called Christians refer to gay people
as "Sodomites" citing a myth that's centuries old, and you complain
about our bringing up the ingnominious history of your born yesterday
lunatic cult.
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Defend Marriage-Vote for Decency- Vote "YES" on 22 - March 7, 2000
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
Drop dead.
frank w elliott jr
: Great! Why stop there? Why not go ahead and cheat on your taxes,
: embezzle money from your employer, and sleep with the neighbor's 10
: year-old kid while you're at it? So many other people do it...including
: politicians and civic/religious leaders...that makes it ok...right?
:
:
:
: I'm curious...what will you do if caught in the act and confronted by an
: angry property owner on whose property who trespassed to engage in
: theft? What would be your response if you caught somebody stealing a
: campaign sign from your property?
:
:
: I'm sorry, no matter how strongly (on either side) you feel about the
: issue, stealing campaign signs is an act of desperation.
I agree, and I would never advocate or excuse such an activity.
However, Proposition 22 is, itself, an attempt to subvert the
equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those who
support proposition 22 are hypocrites if they claim their
constitutional rights are being denied by their opponents.
Proposition 22 supporters by their very nature have no
respect for the basis of the American social contract,
the idea that all are equal under the law.
The opponents of proposition 22 should not bring themselves
down to the level of the supporters of proposition 22
by espousing demagoguery.
Frank
:
:
: --Mike
Clifford Statum
<38B3AB0C...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com>...
>Diane Colson wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com>
wrote:
>> >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye
wrote:
><snip 2 the point>
>> What is wrong with you people ?
> Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs
> legislated into the secular law of the land.
The last time I voted for anything of substance in
California was to vote NO on the lottery initiative.
Likewise, I voted NO a few years back on a local
initiative that would have permitted the sale of
distilled spirits in Rankin County.
Yes, I guess I was trying to foist my beliefs on others.
Michael Wise
elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott
jr) wrote:
> : Great! Why stop there? Why not go ahead and cheat on your taxes,
> : embezzle money from your employer, and sleep with the neighbor's 10
> : year-old kid while you're at it? So many other people do it...including
> : politicians and civic/religious leaders...that makes it ok...right?
> :
> :
> :
> : I'm curious...what will you do if caught in the act and confronted by
> : an
> : angry property owner on whose property who trespassed to engage in
> : theft? What would be your response if you caught somebody stealing a
> : campaign sign from your property?
> :
> :
> : I'm sorry, no matter how strongly (on either side) you feel about the
> : issue, stealing campaign signs is an act of desperation.
>
> I agree, and I would never advocate or excuse such an activity.
>
> However, Proposition 22 is, itself, an attempt to subvert the
> equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those who
> support proposition 22 are hypocrites if they claim their
> constitutional rights are being denied by their opponents.
Good thing you used the "if" qualifier.
> Proposition 22 supporters by their very nature have no
> respect for the basis of the American social contract,
> the idea that all are equal under the law.
But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow a
minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister. Is
that treating a huge group of people "unequally"? Yes. Is that
discriminating against some people who might be truly in love and want
to marry? Yes. Our society, as a whole, has determined that these
actions are "not right." What is and isn't "right" is always in flux and
subject to change. Gays have much more acceptance (right or wrong) in
this country than they did ten or even five years ago. In the Bay Area,
the acceptance is fairly complete and "hip." It's a long ways off to gay
marriage...if ever.
--Mike
Tyler Waite
news:B4D8BDA4.157E5%no-...@gotmoo.com...
>
> In all fairness, the practice of polygamy is an offense punished
invariably
> by excommunication by the Utah church. Splinter groups may still practice
> it, but not the organization at issue here.
Yep these days a man in the church has to wait til his first wife dies
before being sealed for time and all eternity to a second wife. The
practice of polygamy is still something full in the faith men in the church
can practice they just have to wait til the next life to have both wives
with them at the same time. Women still can't be married for time and
eternity to multiple spouses, even if the first spouse is dead and even if
they love both their spouses as much as the men loved the women they were
fortunate enough to have as companions during their life on earth.
The Old Timer
frank w elliott jr <elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu>
wrote in message news:wsSs4.4$1j1....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
> Michael Wise (nos...@nospam.net) wrote:
> : Great! Why stop there? Why not go ahead and cheat on your taxes,
> : embezzle money from your employer, and sleep with the neighbor's 10
> : year-old kid while you're at it? So many other people do it...including
> : politicians and civic/religious leaders...that makes it ok...right?
> :
> :
> :
> : I'm curious...what will you do if caught in the act and confronted by an
> : angry property owner on whose property who trespassed to engage in
> : theft? What would be your response if you caught somebody stealing a
> : campaign sign from your property?
> :
> :
> : I'm sorry, no matter how strongly (on either side) you feel about the
> : issue, stealing campaign signs is an act of desperation.
>
> I agree, and I would never advocate or excuse such an activity.
>
> However, Proposition 22 is, itself, an attempt to subvert the
> equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those who
> support proposition 22 are hypocrites if they claim their
> constitutional rights are being denied by their opponents.
> respect for the basis of the American social contract,
> the idea that all are equal under the law.
Do you not fathom what that "under the law" means? Let's review. It means
that you, as an individual, not as a group, are entitled to the same
protection "under the law" as I am. Every single marriage law in the United
States (look 'em up, I did) states that marriage shall be between a
"husband" and a "wife", or a "man" and a "woman". That's what the laws say
and you are protected, "under the law" the same as I am. Don't like it?
Change the law. Isn't that what 22 is about?
--
Pointing out the other political parties'
scandals makes you a loyalist. Making
excuses for your own parties scandals
makes you an idiot. Being disgusted with
government dishonesty makes you an
American. Failure to demand government
adherence to constitutional principles, dis-
honors your ancestors.
The OldTimer
> Frank
> :
> :
> : --Mike
L. Michael Roberts
Michael Wise wrote:
>
> In article <wsSs4.4$1j1....@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott
>
> > : Great! Why stop there? Why not go ahead and cheat on your taxes,
> > : embezzle money from your employer, and sleep with the neighbor's 10
> > : year-old kid while you're at it? So many other people do it...including
> > : politicians and civic/religious leaders...that makes it ok...right?
> > :
> > :
> > :
> > : I'm curious...what will you do if caught in the act and confronted by
> > : an
> > : angry property owner on whose property who trespassed to engage in
> > : theft? What would be your response if you caught somebody stealing a
> > : campaign sign from your property?
> > :
> > :
> > : I'm sorry, no matter how strongly (on either side) you feel about the
> > : issue, stealing campaign signs is an act of desperation.
> >
> > I agree, and I would never advocate or excuse such an activity.
> >
> > However, Proposition 22 is, itself, an attempt to subvert the
> > equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those who
> > support proposition 22 are hypocrites if they claim their
> > constitutional rights are being denied by their opponents.
>
>
> > respect for the basis of the American social contract,
> > the idea that all are equal under the law.
>
> minor and adult to marry each other....
Look up the concept of "informed consent" and get back to us....
> nor a brother and his sister.
The state has shown a "compelling interest" in preventing close
relatives form marrying each other. The state has shown no such
"compelling interest" in disallowing same sex marriages.
> Is
> that treating a huge group of people "unequally"? Yes. Is that
> discriminating against some people who might be truly in love and want
> to marry? Yes.
No. IN the case of the minor you mentioned above, the
"discrimination: is time limited. One has only to wait until the
minor is of-age and then the two people can be married. THe other
restrictions on who may marry are narrowly drawn and can be
demonstrated in court to have a compelling state interest. Further,
the persons excluded from one's marriage choices are but a handful
of potential mates.... a very small number of the population leaving
one with literally millions of other choices in marriage partner.
Gays are utterly prevented form marrying the consenting adult
partner of their choice. Time will not heal the problem as in the
case of the minor mentioned above and neither are gays banned form
marrying only a handful of possible mates - it is a total, complete
and lifelong ban on marrying the consenting adult partner of their
choice.
> Our society, as a whole, has determined that these
> actions are "not right." What is and isn't "right" is always in flux and
> subject to change. Gays have much more acceptance (right or wrong) in
> this country than they did ten or even five years ago.
THis is because more and more gays are coming out and refusing to
hide. When one discovers that co-workers, friends and especially
family are gay, it changes one's opinions. IT would be difficult
and embarrassing for me to denounce gays knowing that in do doing, I
am rejecting, castigating and discriminating against my brother.
> In the Bay Area,
> the acceptance is fairly complete and "hip." It's a long ways off to gay
> marriage...if ever.
It's here already. Gay marriages have been legal in some nations
in Europe for over a decade now. A bill just passed second reading
in the Canadian parliament that would grant common law marriage
status to any gay couple that have been together for more than a
year. GAy marriage will be on your northern doorstep in a matter of
weeks!
Once that bill has passed, and the required year has elapsed, I
shall look forward to attending a ceremony for my brother and his
partner of the last 12 years, where their devotion to one another is
celebrated publicly.
John Higdon
wrote:
> But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow a
> minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister. Is
> that treating a huge group of people "unequally"?
You are missing the point. California law does not allow marriage between
first cousins, but it recognizes such marriages performed in other states. I
don't see any proposition to close THAT loophole. No, indeed, only one that
screws homosexuals.
Is the intent a little clearer to you now?
John Higdon
wrote:
> Do you not fathom what that "under the law" means? Let's review. It means
> that you, as an individual, not as a group, are entitled to the same
> protection "under the law" as I am. Every single marriage law in the United
> States (look 'em up, I did) states that marriage shall be between a
> "husband" and a "wife", or a "man" and a "woman". That's what the laws say
> and you are protected, "under the law" the same as I am. Don't like it?
> Change the law. Isn't that what 22 is about?
Proposition 22 is about ensuring that a gender-discriminatory law overrides
the "full faith" clause of the Constitution. You are right: the law should
be changed. The first step is to prevent a new law from interfering with
other states that are progressive enough to change their own archaic and
gender-discriminatory laws.
As I stated in another post, California recognizes many procedures and legal
bindings performed in other states that are not allowed in this state, such
recognition done in accordance with the United States Constitution. What
makes this particular item so important that it becomes an exception to that
long-established practice?
John Higdon
> THis is because more and more gays are coming out and refusing to
> hide. When one discovers that co-workers, friends and especially
> family are gay, it changes one's opinions. IT would be difficult
> and embarrassing for me to denounce gays knowing that in do doing, I
> am rejecting, castigating and discriminating against my brother.
One major tactic of those who would deny gay people equal consideration
under the law is to minimize their numbers. They would like to believe and
to have the population as a whole believe that homosexuality is so abnormal
as to be exceedingly rare. This implies that the gay community as a whole is
imminently stompable. There WILL be an awakening eventually. There are more
of "them" out there than any of the comfortable fundies realize.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>In article <wsSs4.4$1j1....@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
>elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott
>jr) wrote:
>
>
>> : Great! Why stop there? Why not go ahead and cheat on your taxes,
>> : embezzle money from your employer, and sleep with the neighbor's 10
>> : year-old kid while you're at it? So many other people do it...including
>> : politicians and civic/religious leaders...that makes it ok...right?
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> : I'm curious...what will you do if caught in the act and confronted by
>> : an
>> : angry property owner on whose property who trespassed to engage in
>> : theft? What would be your response if you caught somebody stealing a
>> : campaign sign from your property?
>> :
>> :
>> : I'm sorry, no matter how strongly (on either side) you feel about the
>> : issue, stealing campaign signs is an act of desperation.
>>
>> I agree, and I would never advocate or excuse such an activity.
>>
>> However, Proposition 22 is, itself, an attempt to subvert the
>> equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those who
>> support proposition 22 are hypocrites if they claim their
>> constitutional rights are being denied by their opponents.
>
>
>Good thing you used the "if" qualifier.
>
>
>> Proposition 22 supporters by their very nature have no
>> respect for the basis of the American social contract,
>> the idea that all are equal under the law.
I had thought that Mike was going to restrict his observations to the
vital issue of "sign stealing" and avoid the issues behind the
proposed legislation -- guess I must have misunderstood his earlier
post.
>
>
>But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow a
>minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister.
Red herring -- and, BTW, this particular herring has been too long out
of the water and off the ice.-- it stinks!
Each of the above prohibited combinations is forbidden for a real
reason -- minors cannot give informed consent and consanguinity leads
to genetic problems. Real problems, problems not based on animus
alone.
>Is
>that treating a huge group of people "unequally"? Yes. Is that
>discriminating against some people who might be truly in love and want
>to marry? Yes. Our society, as a whole, has determined that these
>actions are "not right." What is and isn't "right" is always in flux and
>subject to change. Gays have much more acceptance (right or wrong) in
>this country than they did ten or even five years ago. In the Bay Area,
>the acceptance is fairly complete and "hip." It's a long ways off to gay
>marriage...if ever.
>--Mike
Sooner -- FAR sooner than you may in your xenophobia and intolerance
imagine.
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
Justice is not allowed to cast off her blindfold and
look down the pants of persons requesting a marriage
license to see if they are eligible.
Craig K. Gowens
-----------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Ward and George
43 years together
and yet,
strangers before the law.
---------------------------
The Old Timer
Well, one of your friends up there suggested we look up the meaning of
"informed consent". At the same time, check out "implied consent".
Ward Stewart
wrote:
This one slipped through my kill-file and reminded me of why the Old
Timer had been kill-filed.
>
>Do you not fathom what that "under the law" means? Let's review. It means
>that you, as an individual, not as a group, are entitled to the same
>protection "under the law" as I am. Every single marriage law in the United
>States (look 'em up, I did) states that marriage shall be between a
>"husband" and a "wife", or a "man" and a "woman". That's what the laws say
>and you are protected, "under the law" the same as I am. Don't like it?
>Change the law. Isn't that what 22 is about?
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
I do indeed "fathom" what under the law means although I prefer to
phrase it as before the law -- as in "ALL citizens are entitled to
stand EQUAL before the law."
You then differentiate between the rights of an individual as against
the rights of a group -- meaningless nonsense.
You then go on to suggest that you have looked up and read "Every
single marriage law in the United States" Patently a lie!
You then announce that your exhaustive study has revealed that
"marriage shall be between a "husband" and a "wife", or a "man" and a
"woman.". That's what the laws say."
CLEARLY you have not read the marriage statutes of Hawaii or Vermont
(or several other states) where NO SUCH RESTRICTION IS TO BE FOUND!
Once again, the old observation about there being no fool like an old
fool has, once again, been demonstrated.
Back into the KF
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that
he is FREE to act as he will. To lead his life in any harmless
way he sees fit.He is NOT to be restricted by prejudices and
animosity amongst his neighbors -- if THEY wish to restrain
him from his freedom, THEY must demonstrate the public
interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
David Kaye
" However, Proposition 22 is, itself, an attempt to subvert the
" equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
I notice that the Mormon church did not come out and oppose the "Who Wants
to Marry A Millionaire" marriage sham. So much for the Mormon church
wanting to protect, as they put it, "the sanctity of marriage".
" The opponents of proposition 22 should not bring themselves
" down to the level of the supporters of proposition 22 [....]
Taking the high road doesn't always work. The sabotage of Tom Ammiano's
campaign posters is a case in point. The meek may inherit the earth, but
not before the bullies have made in inhabitable. This is WAR.
--
(C) 2000 Harold Vanderbilt created a Vanderbilt
David Kaye Cup in 1928 for bridge playing
dk at wco.com
David Kaye
" The fact is, however, that these are not members of the Church of Jesus
" Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamy is seen by the Church as
" adultery, and those who engage in it are excommunicated.
Oh? Isn't the practice of polygamy the whole reason the original Mormon
church was persecuted in the first place? Isn't the practice of polygamy
the whole reason why Joseph Smith was shot and killed in jail in St.
Joseph and why Brigham Young brought the Mormons to the lawless West?
It seems odd that a church which pulled up stakes and moved into lawless
territory in order to practice their polygamy would then turn around
and totally ban it, considering that it was a church teaching and all.
Yes, "offically" they banned it, but only because this was a condition of
Utah's being able to enter the Union as a state. And we all know that the
Mormon church does not recognize the law of man, only the "law of God".
Thus, it is safe to assume that polygamy is still practiced by the
Mormons, though not very openly.
" Those polygamists you mention are members of splinter groups.
Splinter groups of what? The Brigham Young LDS church is itself a
splinter group of the St. Joseph church. It's not even the "one true
church".
--
(C) 2000 "I always enjoy dressing up as a hobo. After all
David Kaye is said and done, there's nothing funnier than the
dk at wco.com homeless." -- Dave Foley on Halloween
John Higdon
wrote:
> Well, one of your friends up there suggested we look up the meaning of
> "informed consent". At the same time, check out "implied consent".
Which one of my "friends" was that. I don't believe I'm acquainted with the
individual who used that phrase.
John Higdon
> I notice that the Mormon church did not come out and oppose the "Who Wants
> to Marry A Millionaire" marriage sham. So much for the Mormon church
> wanting to protect, as they put it, "the sanctity of marriage".
Nor did any other sanctimonious guardians of morality. I wonder when
thinking people are going to realize that the only group from which any
"sacred institution" appears to need protection is the GLBT community.
The Old Timer
Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38b743f2.7422316@news-server...
1107
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES H.B. NO.
TWENTIETH LEGISLATURE, 1999
STATE OF HAWAII
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARIES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
1 SECTION 1. The purpose of this bill is to redefine
2 reciprocal beneficiaries to be persons who are not related by
3 blood and who cannot marry and to give couples who have
4 established a reciprocal beneficiary relationship as provided by
5 law most of the legal rights that accrue to married couples.
6 Such things as adoption or other parental rights are excluded.
7 Act 383, Session Laws of Hawaii 1997 allowed persons who could
8 not legally be married to enter into a relationship as reciprocal
9 beneficiaries and gave to such persons certain legal rights,
10 including rights to pensions, workers compensation benefits, and
11 insurance benefits. Many of the laws that deal with married
12 couples, however, were not amended by Act 383 to include
13 reciprocal beneficiaries. This bill would amend the Hawaii
14 Revised Statutes to treat reciprocal beneficiaries and married
15 persons as similarly as possible in both their rights and duties
16 under the law with certain limitations while reserving the
17 institution of marriage to a man and a woman.
18 SECTION 2. Section 11-14.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
19 amended by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
a GOV-14(99)
Page 2 1107
H.B. NO.
>
> Once again, the old observation about there being no fool like an old
> fool has, once again, been demonstrated.
>
> Back into the KF
>
> ward
Ward, are you too stupid to read or just a fuckin' liar? You name the state,
I'll post the law for you. Maybe you have Georgie read it to you.
> Once again, the old observation about there being no fool like an old
> fool has, once again, been demonstrated.
>
You certainly got that right!!!
David Kaye
" Why, if you Gay people are so sure of your case, do you feel you need to
" resort to such low-down, underhanded measures ?
We're only following the lead of the One True Church. You Mormons
repeatedly use underhanded measures to intimidate people.
My ex-boyfriend was followed by LDS members, spied on as he entered gay
bars in Portland, his parents were phoned in Montana and told that they
would suffer dire consequences of his "sin".
When I met him, he was a distraught, on the verge of killing himself. His
own father would no longer talk to him. He felt he was totally worthless,
had somehow "failed", and would spend his nights as a security guard in
the Bank of America building crying and wishing he were dead. That's what
kind of underhanded measures members of YOUR Mormon church did to my
friend, Andy.
While I don't want to be portrayed as anyone's savior, I did comfort Andy,
tried to create a support structure for him, and encouraged him in his
writing. The Mormons shunned Andy. We who helped create his support
network, supported him for what he was: a well-meaning, talented, moral
person. Today he is a moderately well-known writer; and I'm very proud of
him, as his own dad should be, but probably isn't.
--
(C) 2000 In 1969, Marx brother straight man, Zeppo
David Kaye Marx, invented a wristwatch to monitor the
dk at wco.com pulse rate of cardiac patients
John Higdon
> Oh? Isn't the practice of polygamy the whole reason the original Mormon
> church was persecuted in the first place? Isn't the practice of polygamy
> the whole reason why Joseph Smith was shot and killed in jail in St.
> Joseph and why Brigham Young brought the Mormons to the lawless West?
Polygamy was not the issue. The issue was a man claiming to be a prophet of
God and claiming to have had revelation. This was mainly an affront to the
preachers and others who had their own vested interests in "religious
control".
> It seems odd that a church which pulled up stakes and moved into lawless
> territory in order to practice their polygamy would then turn around
> and totally ban it, considering that it was a church teaching and all.
One of the strict church tenets is the principle of obeying the laws of the
land. It is even included in an Article of Faith. Church doctrine has subtly
kept up with the times in many areas. Up until a relatively few years ago,
blacks were not permitted to hold the priesthood (which shut them out of
many higher church blessings and benefits). This policy, through revelation,
was reversed sometime in the 1980s.
> Yes, "offically" they banned it, but only because this was a condition of
> Utah's being able to enter the Union as a state. And we all know that the
> Mormon church does not recognize the law of man, only the "law of God".
Absolutely false. Obeying the laws of the land is embedded in the faith of
LDS members. This is not lip service; this is core belief.
> Thus, it is safe to assume that polygamy is still practiced by the
> Mormons, though not very openly.
Not at all. The church leaders have zero tolerance for polygamy.
> Splinter groups of what? The Brigham Young LDS church is itself a
> splinter group of the St. Joseph church. It's not even the "one true
> church".
We are discussing the Utah church. Call it what you like: splinter group,
the Brigham Young LDS church, or whatever. But don't duck a comment by
hedging your definitions. For the record, by what ever name you want to call
it, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt
Lake City, commonly referred to as the Mormon Church, with the largest
membership of all related churches and offshoots, does not practice, does
not allow its members to practice, and will excommunicate any member who
practices in any form, polygamy. Can that be made any more clear?
I believe the church is wrong on the issue of prop 22. I believe the church
is wrong in its attempts to influence a state election. But it does not
enhance any argument to make uninformed and untrue accusations. In any
debate, credibility is key.
E. Mark Ping
John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
>Up until a relatively few years ago,
>blacks were not permitted to hold the priesthood (which shut them out of
>many higher church blessings and benefits). This policy, through revelation,
>was reversed sometime in the 1980s.
Point of order: the revelation on the priesthood was in 1978.
--
| "If hard data were the filtering criterion
Mark Ping | you could fit the entire contents of the
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU | Internet on a floppy disk."
| - Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope Tells All
John Higdon
> There were other, more significant considerations. Laws had been passed
> that disenfranchised all Latter-day Saints, seized all of the Church's
> property, and made plural marriage a jailable offence.
>
> Maybe if anyone ever tries to do anything like that to you, you'll have
> something to complain about.
There have been a number of church leaders (Joseph Fielding Smith, for one)
who have, in print, expressed disappointment that homosexuality per se is no
longer a crime. You can, perhaps, understand why the gay community might
just be a little wary of any quasi-political activity by the LDS church.
Considering the history of the Mormon church, I am more than a little
mystified that it would be so quick to make life as miserable as it can for
a class of people.
> You are entitled to your opinion. But I recommend that you learn
> considerably more about Mormon things before you hold forth on them.
I can assure you that I am extremely well versed in "Mormon things".
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
James Doemer
Clifford Statum <clif...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:jJSs4.62035$ox5.17...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> wrote:
> >> >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye
> wrote:
>
> >> What is wrong with you people ?
>
> > Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs
> > legislated into the secular law of the land.
>
>
> The last time I voted for anything of substance in
> California was to vote NO on the lottery initiative.
>
> Likewise, I voted NO a few years back on a local
> initiative that would have permitted the sale of
> distilled spirits in Rankin County.
>
> Yes, I guess I was trying to foist my beliefs on others.
Difference:
Neither of the above deprives others of fundamental
human rights without compelling societal reasons.
Gambling is not a fundamental human right, nor is
drinking distilled spirits.
Marriage is.
John Higdon
> It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
>
> But thanks for playing.
What has been the law of the land? Refusal to recognize marriages performed
in other states between same sex partners is certainly not the current law
in California. That is what 22 is all about.
Little one-line zingers are more effective if they are accurate.
Diane Colson
>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
>
>"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
>Happiness -- "
Life ? Of course !
Liberty ? Of course !
Pursuit of happiness? Well.............
..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for the most part
screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as many partners
as possible, then contracting a deadly diseases like AIDS, and _then_ expecting the
American taxpayer to pay for all your anal-sexual "happiness" by funding research
into the _HOMOsexual AIDS epidemic, a virus spread by Gay anal-sexual practices,
for the most part, in America.
All the while, government programs are massively undercutting Cancer and Heart
Disease research, research that affects both Gay & Heterosexual alike, unlike AIDS
that for, the most part, only affects those Americans inclined to Homosexual behavior
and illegal drug use, not most American Heterosexuals, as you liars want the public
to believe.
You Homosexuals have been lying about a supposed Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic" since
the early 1980's, to gain public support and government $$$ to fund your sick
demented behaviors, despite the fact that such an epidemic never has and never
will come to America.
Consider Prop. 22 as a long overdue payback for all your lies, you Gays !!
We are going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths March 7 and you don't
like it one bit, do you ?
Good !!
Pursue your anal-sex happiness with your own money, not mine !!
Don't believe it ?
Read "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael Fumento.
ISBN 0-89526-729-2
----------------------
Defend Marriage - Vote "YES" on Prop 22 March 7
James Doemer
--
http://www.provide.net/~bigtoe
John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote in message
news:B4D9DA70.15991%no-...@gotmoo.com...
> in article 38B49288...@bctv.com, Keith Wood wrote:
>
> > It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
> >
> > But thanks for playing.
>
> What has been the law of the land? Refusal to recognize marriages
performed
> in other states between same sex partners is certainly not the current law
> in California. That is what 22 is all about.
>
However, if you read the US Constitution, which is the law of the land,
including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in another
state. As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged as
unconstitutional in the future. Same thing goes with the DOMA. Such is
why I really don't worry about such laws so much. As an unfortunate side
affect, they will just end up costing the tax payer more to have them
overturned and declared unconstitutional.
L. Michael Roberts
Clifford Statum wrote:
>
> L. Michael Roberts wrote in message
> <38B3AB0C...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com>...
> >Diane Colson wrote:
> wrote:
> >> >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye
> wrote:
> ><snip 2 the point>
>
> >> What is wrong with you people ?
>
> > Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs
> > legislated into the secular law of the land.
>
> The last time I voted for anything of substance in
> California was to vote NO on the lottery initiative.
Lotteries have nothing to do with civil rights....
>
> Likewise, I voted NO a few years back on a local
> initiative that would have permitted the sale of
> distilled spirits in Rankin County.
Drinking spirits has nothing to do with civil rights....
>
> Yes, I guess I was trying to foist my beliefs on others.
Not at all. You voted according to your beliefs and conscience and
I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is a church body sending letters [on
church letterhead] exhorting it's followers [from the pulpit AFAIK]
to vote a certain way and asking them to put up money to support a
political initiative.... Even sending such letters to followers in
other states who are not able to vote on the initiative but asking
them for money.
The Mormons spent over $1.1 Million US$ on anti gay initiatives in
Hawaii and Alaska... who knows what they will spend in California.
That $1.1 Million could have better been used in feeding the hungry,
clothing the needy, housing the homeless and other vital work that
is part of the church's mandate - NOT on political lobbying efforts
and hate campaigns.
L. Michael Roberts
Keith Wood wrote:
>
> "L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
> >
> > Diane Colson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye wrote:
> >
> > <snip 2 the point>
> > >
> > > What is wrong with you people ?
> >
> > Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs legislated into the
> > secular law of the land.
>
>
> But thanks for playing.
Sorry you loose. See the North American indians, the true owners
of the land, who's culture accepted and even encouraged same sex
marriages.
Michael Wise
<no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
> in article nospam-4F56B4....@news.swbell.net, Michael Wise
> wrote:
>
> > But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow
> > a
> > minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister. Is
> > that treating a huge group of people "unequally"?
>
> You are missing the point. California law does not allow marriage between
> first cousins, but it recognizes such marriages performed in other
> states. I
> don't see any proposition to close THAT loophole. No, indeed, only one
> that
> screws homosexuals.
If another state recognized as valid the marriage of a 15 year-old to an
82 year-old...should California be required to recognize it as well?
--Mike
Michael Wise
Stewart) wrote:
> >> Proposition 22 supporters by their very nature have no
> >> respect for the basis of the American social contract,
> >> the idea that all are equal under the law.
>
>
> I had thought that Mike was going to restrict his observations to the
> vital issue of "sign stealing" and avoid the issues behind the
> proposed legislation -- guess I must have misunderstood his earlier
> post.
No, he just keeps getting pulled into a debate about homosexual marriage
itself.
> >But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow a
> >minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister.
>
> Red herring -- and, BTW, this particular herring has been too long out
> of the water and off the ice.-- it stinks!
>
> Each of the above prohibited combinations is forbidden for a real
> reason -- minors cannot give informed consent
I think you're discriminating against minors by thinking they can't give
"informed consent." That the same thing people used to say about black
people. Haven't we laearned?
> Sooner -- FAR sooner than you may in your xenophobia and intolerance
> imagine.
Pass the crack pipe, please.
--Mike
Michael Wise
<News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote:
> >
> > But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow
> > a
> > minor and adult to marry each other....
>
> Look up the concept of "informed consent" and get back to us....
And what makes you think a minor can't give informed consent? A bias
against minors? Are you minorphobic?
> It's here already. Gay marriages have been legal in some nations
> in Europe for over a decade now. A bill just passed second reading
> in the Canadian parliament that would grant common law marriage
> status to any gay couple that have been together for more than a
> year. GAy marriage will be on your northern doorstep in a matter of
> weeks!
More power to them.
John Higdon
>
>
> frank w elliott jr wrote:
>
>
>> However, Proposition 22 is, itself, an attempt to subvert the
>> equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
>
> I look forward to your showing how Prop 22 would change ANYTHING from
> how it is now or how it was when the Constitution was written.
Constitution of the United States
Article IV Section 1
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts,
records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may
be general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Plain English: If a couple is married in one state, that marriage shall be
recognized and honored in every other state.
Prop 22 would be, under the Constitution, illegal if it had not been for
passage by Congress of the "Defense of Marriage Act". (Thanks, Bill
Clinton.)
John Higdon
> ..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for the most
> part
> screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as many
> partners
> as possible, then contracting a deadly diseases like AIDS, and _then_
> expecting the
> American taxpayer to pay for all your anal-sexual "happiness" by funding
> research
> into the _HOMOsexual AIDS epidemic, a virus spread by Gay anal-sexual
> practices,
> for the most part, in America.
I certainly hope you are NOT a member of the LDS church. Your vitriolic
hate-filled rhetoric is well beneath those whom I know in that organization
and whom I still call "friends".
In any event, it isn't worthy of a reasoned response.
John Higdon
> However, if you read the US Constitution, which is the law of the land,
> including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
> issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in another
> state.
Article IV, Section 1.
> As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged as
> unconstitutional in the future.
Probably not. In that section, Congress is given power to adjust the
specifics. The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act", Clinton's masterpiece
to woo the south last election, makes those specific terms of marriage
acceptance individually definable in the states.
John Higdon
wrote:
> If another state recognized as valid the marriage of a 15 year-old to an
> 82 year-old...should California be required to recognize it as well?
California would have to recognize it under the law. Show me a law that
would so much as permit California to NOT recognize it.
John Higdon
> However the DOMA itself is in conflict with the US constitution.
In its original form, yes. It's original intent was to impose upon the
states such a definition of marriage. It was deemed Constitutional if it
ALLOWED the states to write their own terms of acceptance of another state's
marriage ceremony.
"And the Congress may by GENERAL LAWS [emphasis mine] prescribe the manner
in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect
thereof."
It would take a pretty creative court to determine that such language did
not permit Prop. 22. after specifically enabled by Congressional act.
> It will only be a matter of time [and taxpayer dollars] before it is
> brought before the SCOTUS and struck down.
Unfortunately, I don't see that in the cards. Passage of Prop. 22 will be a
major screw job on GLBT legal rights.
> Besides, just what exactly is the DOMA "defending" marriage
> against?
A more appropriate name would be "keep them homos in their place" act. But
people who support it need to feel "good" about it. Some of them actually
believe that it has to do with morality and purity and all the other warm
and fuzzies used to cover the reality of limiting the rights of others.
Diane Colson
>In alt.politics.homosexuality,
><2o79bs0llgknk6lbq...@4ax.com>, Diane Colson
><dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:12:12 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
>>
>>>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
>>>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
>>>
>>>"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>>>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
>>>Happiness -- "
>>
>>Life ? Of course !
>>
>>Liberty ? Of course !
>>
>>Pursuit of happiness? Well.............
>>
>>..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for the most part
>>screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as many partners
>>as possible, then contracting a deadly diseases like AIDS, and _then_ expecting the
>>American taxpayer to pay for all your anal-sexual "happiness" by funding research
>>into the _HOMOsexual AIDS epidemic, a virus spread by Gay anal-sexual practices,
>>for the most part, in America.
>>
>>All the while, government programs are massively undercutting Cancer and Heart
>>Disease research, research that affects both Gay & Heterosexual alike, unlike AIDS
>>that for, the most part, only affects those Americans inclined to Homosexual behavior
>>and illegal drug use, not most American Heterosexuals, as you liars want the public
>>to believe.
>>
>>You Homosexuals have been lying about a supposed Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic" since
>>the early 1980's, to gain public support and government $$$ to fund your sick
>>demented behaviors, despite the fact that such an epidemic never has and never
>>will come to America.
>>
>>Consider Prop. 22 as a long overdue payback for all your lies, you Gays !!
>>
>>We are going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths March 7 and you don't
>>like it one bit, do you ?
>>
>>Good !!
>>
>>Pursue your anal-sex happiness with your own money, not mine !!
>>
>>Don't believe it ?
>>
>>Read "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael Fumento.
>>
>>ISBN 0-89526-729-2
>>
>>----------------------
>>
>>Defend Marriage - Vote "YES" on Prop 22 March 7
>
>Your rant neatly avoids the obvious.
Truth, not rant. No, it seems it is you who are avoiding the issues:
That being the attempt by the Gay Lobby to force their will on a tolerant, though
unaccepting public through the legislative process, not understanding that you cannot
legislate tolerance.
Fact: You will NEVER have the complete acceptance of the general public no matter
how many "pro-Gay" laws you people try to pass.
If you continue in such behavior you will find out that decent Heterosexual people
will no longer even _tolerate_ your disgusting, anti-life behavior being shoved in
their faces either, and the will shun you back to the closet as before.
You will find that out March 7, 2000, to be sure. That's will be a long overdue
payback time for you Gays !
>The most rational message you could hope to send (as opposed to "We are
>going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths,") would be to
>encourage people to enter into longtime committed relationships, with the
>goal of limiting sexual contacts outside the relationship.
>
>That would make sense. Instead you've chose precisely the action least
>likely to have any positive effect that you claim to support.
The positive effect , a wake-up call for you Gays, will come March 7 when society
refutes your sick, perverted lifestyle for all to see.
>If you truly want what you say you want, then taking punitive action is
>short-sighted. You thereby lose any moral authority to complain about the
>supposed failure of responsibility of gay men, since you will have had a
>hand in creating exactly the atmosphere that you decry.
I lose moral authority ? You must be joking !
So you believe that society has an obligation to bail you Gays out of your own
messes, when you become sick with AIDS, after all studies show that most HIV cases
diagnosed in America were primarily transmitted by Gay Anal-Sexual practices ?
No, you have no moral high ground by robbing the public through taxation at the point
of the IRS's guns to fund your AIDS related illnesses in healthcare costs, not to
mention the fact that the Lavender Lobby is also guilty of deverting needed medical
resources away from much needed research into the causes and cures of deadly diseases
affecting everyone, not just the many AIDS-related illnesses and venereal diseases
that Homosexuals contract in the course of practicing their anal-preversion filled
way of life.
No, it is you Homosexuals who have LIED to the public for 20 years about the
non-existant Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic", the so-called epidemic that has never
come to America in over 20 years of the Gay Lobby's blatant lies to the contrary.
>Prop. 22 is in no way a "defense" of marriage. No mixed-sex marriage will
>be any better for its passage. You will instead have perpetuated an
>atmosphere of exclusion that has direct negative consequences on the health
>and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens,
It seems that AIDS has had a "direct negative consequence on the health
and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens", but as usual, your kind covers this up like
cats covering up the mess in a sandbox to your own detriment.
I give you credit for at least not having to lie about the facts about the American
Gay AIDS epidemic, like most of your lying brethren, but I cant help but notice that
you did not refute any of the content of the message, only resorting to the
subterfuge of trying to connect the so-called "exclusion" of the Homosexual CULTure
of death, to the rest of society.
Like the parts of a body, sick with gangrene, the body of society is never going to
willingly accept your sick, perverted Homosexual lifestyle, so you attempt to
legislate it into existence, by force of law, knowing full well that this is the
case.
Admittedly, In the short term it has been somewhat effective, but in the long term,
it will not.
You will find out that sad fact of life (for you) come March 7, when we bring down
the house with a resounding "YES" vote on Prop 22.
>to their detriment and yours.
Nope.
It is the Male Homosexual community that has a problem with detrimental viruses, not
to mention abnormal sexual proclivities, not American Adult Heterosexuals.
>Please re-think your position.
What's to think about ? The truth is out there for anyone who cares to check it out.
Don't believe me ?
Read the book " And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts.
ISBN 0-14-011369-X
------------------------------------------
TheJordan6
>Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 17:56 EST
>Message-id: <891oid$8vm$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>
>In article <B4D99972.1591C%no-...@gotmoo.com>,
>John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
>>Up until a relatively few years ago,
>>blacks were not permitted to hold the priesthood (which shut them out of
>>many higher church blessings and benefits). This policy, through revelation,
>>was reversed sometime in the 1980s.
>
>Point of order: the revelation on the priesthood was in 1978.
And what was the date of the revelation that instituted the ban, Mark?
Randy J.
Russell McGregor
Jesus
> " Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamy is seen by the Church as
> " adultery, and those who engage in it are excommunicated.
>
Mormon
> church was persecuted in the first place?
No. It was one reason, but not the only one.
> Isn't the practice of polygamy
> the whole reason why Joseph Smith was shot and killed in jail in St.
> Joseph
St. Joseph? Has Carthage, Ill. been renamed?
Again, no.
> and why Brigham Young brought the Mormons to the lawless West?
No.
> It seems odd that a church which pulled up stakes and moved into
lawless
> territory in order to practice their polygamy
Actually the Church moved west to be left alone. That's all.
> would then turn around
> and totally ban it, considering that it was a church teaching and all.
It happened. Get over it.
> Yes, "offically" they banned it,
Yes, "officially" and actually.
> but only because this was a condition of
> Utah's being able to enter the Union as a state.
There were other, more significant considerations. Laws had been passed
that disenfranchised all Latter-day Saints, seized all of the Church's
property, and made plural marriage a jailable offence.
Maybe if anyone ever tries to do anything like that to you, you'll have
something to complain about.
> And we all know that the
> Mormon church does not recognize the law of man, only the "law of
God".
Who are "we all" and how do "we all know" this blatant lie?
> Thus, it is safe to assume that polygamy is still practiced by the
> Mormons, though not very openly.
However "safe" it may be to "assume" such a falsehood, it is still
false.
> " Those polygamists you mention are members of splinter groups.
>
> Splinter groups of what?
Splinter groups of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
which was founded in Fayette, New York, in 1830, and now has its
headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.
> The Brigham Young LDS church is itself a
> splinter group of the St. Joseph church.
What "St. Joseph church" is that?
> It's not even the "one true church".
You are entitled to your opinion. But I recommend that you learn
considerably more about Mormon things before you hold forth on them.
It appears to me that all you actually know about the Church of Jesus
Christ is that it is instutionally, and the members are generally, in
favour of the terrible Prop. 22. If that is all you need to know, fine;
but I suggest in that case that you confine yourself to the political
aspects of the discussion. You only end up looking stupid when you
deliver yourself of such a tissue of wild inaccuracies.
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
E. Mark Ping
Relevance?
Given your active posting history on this group, I imagine you know
the answer to the question. Hence why are you asking?
Ward Stewart
Thank you Frank -- VERY neatly phrased!
ward
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:38:21 GMT,
elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott
jr) wrote:
>Diane Colson (dco...@homenet.org) wrote:
>: On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:29:38 GMT, David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
>:
>: And that was many, many years ago as, you must know already.
>:
>: Besides, the niether the Church, nor its congregation, have ever had to lie about
>: this, as you worshippers of a demented disgusting cult, Homosexuality, have to
>: resort to doing all the time.
>:
>: Why in the world would you have to drag out century old history ?
>:
>This is painfully stupid. So called Christians refer to gay people
>as "Sodomites" citing a myth that's centuries old, and you complain
>about our bringing up the ingnominious history of your born yesterday
>lunatic cult.
>
>: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: Defend Marriage-Vote for Decency- Vote "YES" on 22 - March 7, 2000
>: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:
>Drop dead.
----------------------------------------------------
The domestic reason for including same-gender unions
is the SAME as for the granting of the franchise to women
and the integration of the armed services and schools
-- to advance our republic toward a realization of
the promises and principles of the founding documents.
Uncle Ward
----------------------------------------------------
David Kaye
" Nor did any other sanctimonious guardians of morality. I wonder when
" thinking people are going to realize that the only group from which any
" "sacred institution" appears to need protection is the GLBT community.
Or to put it another way, GLBT people seem to be among the few people who
actually *value* marriage, and thus are fighting to get married.
In general, it appears that non-GLBT (that is, "straight") people don't
seem to think much of marriage. Well, they take it for granted anyway.
--
(C) 2000 The city name "Toronto" comes from
David Kaye the poles used to catch fish
dk at wco.com
David Kaye
" Polygamy was not the issue.
Okay, got it. But, heh, it did bring up the bristles on some people here.
" Absolutely false. Obeying the laws of the land is embedded in the faith of
" LDS members. This is not lip service; this is core belief.
Okay. I'll accept that.
--
(C) 2000
David Kaye
dk at wco.com
Keith Wood
Keith Wood
David Kaye wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " The fact is, however, that these are not members of the Church of Jesus
> " Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamy is seen by the Church as
> " adultery, and those who engage in it are excommunicated.
>
> Oh? Isn't the practice of polygamy the whole reason the original Mormon
> church was persecuted in the first place?
Nope. Polygamy came later. In fact, the persecution began before the
Church was organized.
> Isn't the practice of polygamy
> the whole reason why Joseph Smith was shot and killed in jail in St.
> Joseph and why Brigham Young brought the Mormons to the lawless West?
Joseph Smith was shot by a mob in Carthage, Illinois.
The Saints fled Nauvoo because of mobocrats, who wanted what the Saints
had built up.
> It seems odd that a church which pulled up stakes and moved into lawless
> territory in order to practice their polygamy would then turn around
> and totally ban it, considering that it was a church teaching and all.
The time for it came, then passed. Do you eat last year's food? No?
Does that mean that all food is evil?
> Yes, "offically" they banned it, but only because this was a condition of
> Utah's being able to enter the Union as a state. And we all know that the
> Mormon church does not recognize the law of man, only the "law of God".
> Thus, it is safe to assume that polygamy is still practiced by the
> Mormons, though not very openly.
No, it isn't safe to assume that.
> " Those polygamists you mention are members of splinter groups.
>
> Splinter groups of what? The Brigham Young LDS church is itself a
> splinter group of the St. Joseph church. It's not even the "one true
> church".
If you say so. You are SO correct on EVERYTHING else you wrote, you
MUST be the authority.
Keith Wood
frank w elliott jr wrote:
>
> Diane Colson (dco...@homenet.org) wrote:
> : On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:29:38 GMT, David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
> :
> : And that was many, many years ago as, you must know already.
> :
> : Besides, the niether the Church, nor its congregation, have ever had to lie about
> : this, as you worshippers of a demented disgusting cult, Homosexuality, have to
> : resort to doing all the time.
> :
> : Why in the world would you have to drag out century old history ?
> :
> This is painfully stupid. So called Christians refer to gay people
> as "Sodomites" citing a myth that's centuries old, and you complain
> about our bringing up the ingnominious history of your born yesterday
> lunatic cult.
Uh, actually, you are called Sodomites because you practice sodomy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> : Defend Marriage-Vote for Decency- Vote "YES" on 22 - March 7, 2000
> : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> :
> Drop dead.
Ah, yes, the ultimate intellectual response.
Personally, MY only complaint with the so-called "gay community" is
that, when AIDS was still confined to your group, you people considered
any reasonable suggestion for containment of "Gay-Related Immuno-
Deficiency" to be anti-homosexual. We could have STOPPED AIDS if your
"activists" had had 5 brain cells between them.
However, thanks to your lifestyle, you are far more likely to drop dead
in the near future than am I.
Keith Wood
frank w elliott jr wrote:
David Kaye
" Nope. Polygamy came later. In fact, the persecution began before the
" Church was organized.
Okay. I'll accept that.
" Joseph Smith was shot by a mob in Carthage, Illinois.
My mistake. My memory is a little dim, since this is not an area I think
about very much.
" The Saints fled Nauvoo because of mobocrats, who wanted what the Saints
" had built up.
No doubt the LDS people have a method of building up great wealth.
" The time for it came, then passed. Do you eat last year's food? No?
" Does that mean that all food is evil?
Actually, the other day I ate a can of last year's chili con carne. As
for my personal stand on polygamy, I really don't care what consenting
people do with each other, as long as no coercion is used (such as a
trusted adult violating a child's right to self-determination, etc).
I brought up the polygamy issue simply because it's a hot-button which
might cause people to see that the right to live as one sees fit is what's
*really* at issue. Gay people are unfairly treated by the state's refusal
to sanction gay marriage because of higher taxation (such as inheritance
taxes which are charged to same-sex partners and not married partners,
etc.), refusal to allow hospital visits to partners in same-sex couples,
etc.
The state should treat all people's relationships fairly, and not give
special privileges to opposite sex partners which are denied to same-sex
partners.
--
(C) 2000 "We can't hear the balance yet because the soloist
David Kaye is still on the airplane." --Eugene Ormandy conducting
dk at wco.com the Philadelphia Orchestra
Keith Wood
David Kaye wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Nope. Polygamy came later. In fact, the persecution began before the
> " Church was organized.
>
> Okay. I'll accept that.
>
> " Joseph Smith was shot by a mob in Carthage, Illinois.
>
> My mistake. My memory is a little dim, since this is not an area I think
> about very much.
>
> " The Saints fled Nauvoo because of mobocrats, who wanted what the Saints
> " had built up.
>
> No doubt the LDS people have a method of building up great wealth.
Your snide comment aside, the fact is that the Saints bought a swamp on
the banks of the Mississippi River and within 5 years it was one of the
two largest cities in Illinois. They did it through industry. Thugs
will always want what others build.
vody...@my-deja.com
"L. Michael Roberts" <News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote:
>
> Diane Colson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> > >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye
wrote:
>
> <snip 2 the point>
> >
> > What is wrong with you people ?
>
> Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs legislated into
the
> secular law of the land.
>
You know, 2/3rds of Latinos (who make up 15% of the voters in CA)
support Prop 22. That is a far greater influence than mormons (who
probably compris about 1% of voters in CA).
Seeing that this is the case, will you now rail against Latinos? After
all, they are trying to make their cultural norms legislated into the
secular law of the land.
(Hint. In CA, it already is.)
Geoff Matthews
Keith Wood
James Doemer wrote:
>
> --
> http://www.provide.net/~bigtoe
> John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote in message
> news:B4D9DA70.15991%no-...@gotmoo.com...
> > in article 38B49288...@bctv.com, Keith Wood wrote:
> >
> > > It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
> > >
> > > But thanks for playing.
> >
> > What has been the law of the land? Refusal to recognize marriages
> performed
> > in other states between same sex partners is certainly not the current law
> > in California. That is what 22 is all about.
> >
>
> However, if you read the US Constitution, which is the law of the land,
> including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
> issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in another
> state. As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged as
> unconstitutional in the future.
Yeah, just like the ban on "assault weapons" and the refusal of CA to
respect the concealed weapons permits from other states.
Keith Wood
David Kaye wrote:
>
> John Higdon wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Polygamy was not the issue.
>
> Okay, got it. But, heh, it did bring up the bristles on some people here.
Not hardly. The statement was wrong, and I wanted the truth to be
known.
Keith Wood
"L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
> >
> > "L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
> > >
> > > Diane Colson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip 2 the point>
> > > >
> > > > What is wrong with you people ?
> > >
> > > Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs legislated into the
> > > secular law of the land.
> >
> > It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
> >
> > But thanks for playing.
>
> Sorry you loose. See the North American indians, the true owners
> of the land, who's culture accepted and even encouraged same sex
> marriages.
Wrong answer. The American Indians weren't here first, according to the
anthropologists.
However, regarding the law of the land: this is the United States of
America, which has never permitted marriage between members of the same
sex.
Now you don't even get a copy of our home game.
John Wilkinson
The most rational message you could hope to send (as opposed to "We are
going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths,") would be to
encourage people to enter into longtime committed relationships, with the
goal of limiting sexual contacts outside the relationship.
That would make sense. Instead you've chose precisely the action least
likely to have any positive effect that you claim to support.
If you truly want what you say you want, then taking punitive action is
short-sighted. You thereby lose any moral authority to complain about the
supposed failure of responsibility of gay men, since you will have had a
hand in creating exactly the atmosphere that you decry.
Prop. 22 is in no way a "defense" of marriage. No mixed-sex marriage will
be any better for its passage. You will instead have perpetuated an
atmosphere of exclusion that has direct negative consequences on the health
and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens, to their detriment and yours.
Please re-think your position.
---
John and Dave -- 30 years together,
but still strangers before the law.
-jw...@eskimo.com
-www.eskimo.com/~jwilk
L. Michael Roberts
> > including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
> > issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in another
> > state.
>
>
> > As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged as
> > unconstitutional in the future.
>
> specifics. The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act", Clinton's masterpiece
> to woo the south last election, makes those specific terms of marriage
> acceptance individually definable in the states.
However the DOMA itself is in conflict with the US constitution.
It will only be a matter of time [and taxpayer dollars] before it is
brought before the SCOTUS and struck down.
Besides, just what exactly is the DOMA "defending" marriage
against?
<sig snip>
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
Ward Stewart
<russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> It seems odd that a church which pulled up stakes and moved into
>lawless
>> territory in order to practice their polygamy
>
>Actually the Church moved west to be left alone. That's all.
>
>> would then turn around
>> and totally ban it, considering that it was a church teaching and all.
>
>It happened. Get over it.
You are at the very nub of the problem -- IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN as the
Mormons demonstrate with a hideous clarity their inability to learn
anything useful from a century of discrimination and mistreatment.
I shall not "get over it" until they get off of my case! As simple as
that.
ward
>
>> Yes, "offically" they banned it,
>
>Yes, "officially" and actually.
>
>> but only because this was a condition of
>> Utah's being able to enter the Union as a state.
>
>There were other, more significant considerations. Laws had been passed
>that disenfranchised all Latter-day Saints, seized all of the Church's
>property, and made plural marriage a jailable offence.
>
>Maybe if anyone ever tries to do anything like that to you, you'll have
>something to complain about.
>
>> And we all know that the
>> Mormon church does not recognize the law of man, only the "law of
>God".
>
>Who are "we all" and how do "we all know" this blatant lie?
>
>> Thus, it is safe to assume that polygamy is still practiced by the
>> Mormons, though not very openly.
>
>However "safe" it may be to "assume" such a falsehood, it is still
>false.
>
>> " Those polygamists you mention are members of splinter groups.
>>
>> Splinter groups of what?
>
>Splinter groups of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
>which was founded in Fayette, New York, in 1830, and now has its
>headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.
>
>> The Brigham Young LDS church is itself a
>> splinter group of the St. Joseph church.
>
>What "St. Joseph church" is that?
>
>> It's not even the "one true church".
>
>You are entitled to your opinion. But I recommend that you learn
>considerably more about Mormon things before you hold forth on them.
>
>It appears to me that all you actually know about the Church of Jesus
>Christ is that it is instutionally, and the members are generally, in
>favour of the terrible Prop. 22. If that is all you need to know, fine;
>but I suggest in that case that you confine yourself to the political
>aspects of the discussion. You only end up looking stupid when you
>deliver yourself of such a tissue of wild inaccuracies.
>
>Russell C. McGregor
--------------------
Ward and George
43 years together
and yet,
strangers before the law.
---------------------------
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>In article <B4D96250.15875%no-...@gotmoo.com>, John Higdon
><no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
>
>> in article nospam-4F56B4....@news.swbell.net, Michael Wise
>> wrote:
>>
>> > But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow
>> > a
>> > minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister. Is
>> > that treating a huge group of people "unequally"?
>>
>> You are missing the point. California law does not allow marriage between
>> first cousins, but it recognizes such marriages performed in other
>> states. I
>> don't see any proposition to close THAT loophole. No, indeed, only one
>> that
>> screws homosexuals.
>
>If another state recognized as valid the marriage of a 15 year-old to an
>82 year-old...should California be required to recognize it as well?
>
>--Mike
Yes indeed. California IS required to recognize such a marriage. --
how can this be news to you? I had supposed that you were trying to
pass yourself off as an expert of some sort in these matters.
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that
he is FREE to act as he will. To lead his life in any harmless
way he sees fit.He is NOT to be restricted by prejudices and
animosity amongst his neighbors -- if THEY wish to restrain
him from his freedom, THEY must demonstrate the public
interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:12:12 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
>
>>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
>>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
>>
>>"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
>>Happiness -- "
>
>Life ? Of course !
>
>Liberty ? Of course !
>
>Pursuit of happiness? Well.............
>
>..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for the most part
>screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as many partners
>as possible, then contracting a deadly diseases like AIDS, and _then_ expecting the
>American taxpayer to pay for all your anal-sexual "happiness" by funding research
>into the _HOMOsexual AIDS epidemic, a virus spread by Gay anal-sexual practices,
>for the most part, in America.
My oh My! The voice of the turtledove is heard in the land.
Illuminated by the spirit of true Christian love for her neighbor she
explains it all to us.
ward
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We say the expression of love in a monogamous, heterosexual
relationship
is more than just the physical but includes touching, embracing,
kissing,
maybe the genital act. The totality of this makes each of us grow to
become
giving, increasingly god-like and compassionate. If it is so for the
heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the
case
with the homosexual, provided the relationship is exclusive, not
promiscuous?" -- Archbishop Desmond Tutu
"We reject them, treat them as pariahs, and push them outside the
confines
of our church communities, and thereby we negate the consequences of
their
baptism and ours. We make them doubt that they are the children of
God, and
this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for
something that
it is becoming increasingly clear they can do little about. Someone
has said
that if this particular sexual orientation were indeed a matter of
personal
choice, then gay and lesbian persons must be the craziest coots
around to
choose a way of life that exposes them to so much hostility,
discrimination,
loss, and suffering. To say this is akin to saying that a black
person
voluntarily chooses a complexion and race that exposes him - or
herself -
to all the hatred, suffering, and disadvantages to be found in a
racist
society. Such a person would be stark raving mad...It is only of
homosexual
persons that we require universal celibacy, whereas for others we
teach
that celibacy is a special vocation. We say that sexual orientation
is
morally a matter of indifference, but what is culpable are homosexual
acts.
But then we claim that sexuality is a divine gift, which used
properly,
helps us to become more fully human and akin really to God, as it is
this
part of our humanity that makes us more gentle and caring, more
self-giving
and concerned for others than we would be without that gift. Why
should
we want all homosexual persons not to give expression to their
sexuality
in loving acts? Why don't we use the same criteria to judge same-sex
relationships that we use to judge whether heterosexual relationships
are
wholesome or not? I was left deeply disturbed by these
inconsistencies and
knew that the Lord of the Church would not be where his church is in
this
matter. Can we act quickly to let the gospel imperatives prevail as
we
remember our baptism and theirs, and be thankful?"
-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
>
>
>"L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
>>
>> Keith Wood wrote:
>> >
>> > "L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Diane Colson wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David Kaye wrote:
>> > >
>> > > <snip 2 the point>
>> > > >
>> > > > What is wrong with you people ?
>> > >
>> > > Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs legislated into the
>> > > secular law of the land.
>> >
>> > It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
>> >
>> > But thanks for playing.
>>
>> Sorry you loose. See the North American indians, the true owners
>> of the land, who's culture accepted and even encouraged same sex
>> marriages.
>
>Wrong answer. The American Indians weren't here first, according to the
>anthropologists.
NOW! Here's an interesting little diversion -- if the AMerinds were
not the first here, who were?
Do not fear to cite the "anthropologists" you reference so blithely.
ward
Russell McGregor
wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:28:33 GMT, Russell McGregor
> <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> It seems odd that a church which pulled up stakes and moved into
> >lawless
> >> territory in order to practice their polygamy
> >
> >Actually the Church moved west to be left alone. That's all.
> >
> >> would then turn around
> >> and totally ban it, considering that it was a church teaching and
all.
> >
> >It happened. Get over it.
>
> You are at the very nub of the problem -- IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN as the
> Mormons demonstrate with a hideous clarity their inability to learn
> anything useful from a century of discrimination and mistreatment.
The analogy, which those on your side of the argument seem to love to
draw, is imperfect, and thus a fallacy.
Nobody is trying to take away your right to vote, to hold public
office, or to serve on a jury. Nobody is going to throw you in jail
for living with George. Nobody will prosecute you for a new offence
every day you stay with George. Nobody is trying to seize any property
held collectively by any group with which you affiliate. Nobody will
send an army to drive you out of your homes.
All these things were done to us. To claim that this is somehow
comparable to specifying in statute that your relationships are not
marriages is absurd.
> I shall not "get over it" until they get off of my case! As simple as
> that.
>
> ward
Well there you go, Ward. We don't see it as your case. We see it as
the marriage case -- an exclusively heterosexual case -- and would like
you, collectively, to get off it instead.
Snip to end
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
David Kaye
">>
">>>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
">>>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
I don't know if you're aware of it (you don't seem to be aware of much),
but you are needlessly quoting and requoting others and making a huge
post, which few if any people are going to read. Consider trimming your
quotes down to the essentials of what you're responding to.
--
(C) 2000 The official state cooking pot
David Kaye of Utah is the Dutch oven
dk at wco.com
Steve
bitch distributed to everyone in California. People would realize the
TRUE purpose of Prop 22 and what kind of people support it.
It's defeat would be GUARANTEED.
Steve
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:01:29 -0700, Diane Colson <dco...@homenet.org>
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:12:12 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
>
>>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
>>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
>>
>>"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
>>Happiness -- "
>
>Life ? Of course !
>
>Liberty ? Of course !
>
>Pursuit of happiness? Well.............
>
>..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for the most part
>screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as many partners
>as possible, then contracting a deadly diseases like AIDS, and _then_ expecting the
>American taxpayer to pay for all your anal-sexual "happiness" by funding research
>into the _HOMOsexual AIDS epidemic, a virus spread by Gay anal-sexual practices,
>for the most part, in America.
>
>All the while, government programs are massively undercutting Cancer and Heart
>Disease research, research that affects both Gay & Heterosexual alike, unlike AIDS
>that for, the most part, only affects those Americans inclined to Homosexual behavior
>and illegal drug use, not most American Heterosexuals, as you liars want the public
>to believe.
>
>You Homosexuals have been lying about a supposed Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic" since
>the early 1980's, to gain public support and government $$$ to fund your sick
>demented behaviors, despite the fact that such an epidemic never has and never
>will come to America.
>
>Consider Prop. 22 as a long overdue payback for all your lies, you Gays !!
>
>We are going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths March 7 and you don't
>like it one bit, do you ?
>
>Good !!
>
>Pursue your anal-sex happiness with your own money, not mine !!
>
>Don't believe it ?
>
>Read "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael Fumento.
>
>ISBN 0-89526-729-2
>
>----------------------
>
>Defend Marriage - Vote "YES" on Prop 22 March 7
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals,
and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God
doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need
more supervision. - Lynn Lavner
John DeSalvio
> "L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
> >
> > Diane Colson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David
Kaye wrote:
> >
> > <snip 2 the point>
> > >
> > > What is wrong with you people ?
> >
> > Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs legislated into the
> > secular law of the land.
>
> It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
WRONG.
It has NOT been the law of the land, otherwise Congress would not
have seen the necessity of passing the unconstitutional DOMA.
There was, until that fiasco, NO FEDERAL LAW relating to marriage.
Marriage had nothing to do with religion for the first several thousand years
before Judaism; several religious groups felt that marriage should NOT be
a religious, but a secular union; and several civilizations and cultures have
accepted same-sex marriages throughout history.
The Catholic Church blessed and conducted same-sex marriages until
the 12th century.
Get back to us when you learn something about history and "tradition."
--
For my correct e-mail address, please post request and your e-mail address.
John De Salvio
John DeSalvio
> frank w elliott jr wrote:
> >
> > Diane Colson (dco...@homenet.org) wrote:
> > : On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:29:38 GMT, David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com>
wrote:
> > :
> > : And that was many, many years ago as, you must know already.
> > :
> > : Besides, the niether the Church, nor its congregation, have ever had
to lie about
> > : this, as you worshippers of a demented disgusting cult,
Homosexuality, have to
> > : resort to doing all the time.
> > :
> > : Why in the world would you have to drag out century old history ?
> > :
> > This is painfully stupid. So called Christians refer to gay people
> > as "Sodomites" citing a myth that's centuries old, and you complain
> > about our bringing up the ingnominious history of your born yesterday
> > lunatic cult.
>
> Uh, actually, you are called Sodomites because you practice sodomy.
Wrong again.
"Sodomy" is defined as various different sex acts, depending on what
jurisdiction you are in. It can be any non-reproductive sex. There are
many millions more heterosexual people practicing sodomy than there
are homosexuals, period.
Every time you muff-dive, you are committing sodomy, Keith.
"Sodomy" was not described as a homosexual act by the Roman Catholic
Church until the 12th century CE.
Read "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology" by Mark D. Jordan
University of Chicago Press, 1997).
John DeSalvio
> frank w elliott jr wrote:
>
>
Look up "Full Faith and Credit" in the US Constitution.
John DeSalvio
> James Doemer wrote:
> >
> > --
> > http://www.provide.net/~bigtoe
> > John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:B4D9DA70.15991%no-...@gotmoo.com...
> > > in article 38B49288...@bctv.com, Keith Wood wrote:
> > >
> > > > It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
> > > >
> > > > But thanks for playing.
> > >
> > > What has been the law of the land? Refusal to recognize marriages
> > performed
> > > in other states between same sex partners is certainly not the current law
> > > in California. That is what 22 is all about.
> > >
> >
> > However, if you read the US Constitution, which is the law of the land,
> > including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
> > issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in another
> > state. As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged as
> > unconstitutional in the future.
>
> Yeah, just like the ban on "assault weapons" and the refusal of CA to
> respect the concealed weapons permits from other states.
You might just want to check the US Supreme Court in any questions
brought before it regarding the Second Amendment.
L. Michael Roberts
Diane Colson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:41:30 GMT, John Wilkinson <john...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >In alt.politics.homosexuality,
> ><2o79bs0llgknk6lbq...@4ax.com>, Diane Colson
> ><dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:12:12 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
<snip>
> >Your rant neatly avoids the obvious.
>
> Truth, not rant. No, it seems it is you who are avoiding the issues:
>
> That being the attempt by the Gay Lobby
Where is this lobby located? Is it tastefully decorated?
> to force their will on a tolerant, though
> unaccepting public through the legislative process, not understanding that you cannot
> legislate tolerance.
It worked for the president [Eisenhower?] who mandated racial
integration on the armed forces. There was a lot of complaining
over that for a while but it soon became a non issue.
>
> Fact: You will NEVER have the complete acceptance of the general public no matter
> how many "pro-Gay" laws you people try to pass.
Who cares about acceptance? What we are talking about here is
civil rights and EQUALITY before the law! There are certain
religionists that I will never accept... but I tolerate them and I
don't seek to take away their civil rights no matter how kooky I may
think their beliefs are.
>
> If you continue in such behavior you will find out that decent Heterosexual people
> will no longer even _tolerate_ your disgusting, anti-life behavior being shoved in
> their faces either, and the will shun you back to the closet as before.
Listen... When my brother came out to the family it caused us a lot
of anguish and some of us had to do a 180 degree turn of attitude.
My brother was still the same man I had grown up with he had just
revealed something we had not known before. As more and more gays
come out and refuse to hide any longer, more people are discovering
they they are friends, neighbours, relatives, co-workers and family.
Why should my brother and his partner of 12+ years not be entitled
to the same civil rights and protections before the law as my sister
got for her relationships? In the same 12+ years, my sister has
been married twice and is currently divorced - she was not much of
an example when it came to "family values". When the bill currently
before parliament passes shortly, I will be on the phone to
congratulate my brother as his relationship will then be recognized
as "common-law" and he will at least be entitled to some legal
protections.
>
> You will find that out March 7, 2000, to be sure. That's will be a long overdue
> payback time for you Gays !
The vote will make little or no difference in the long run.
Voting in an unconstitutional amendment to the laws just means that
it will take a few years longer, and a few million in taxpayer
dollars, to have it struck down by the courts.
<snip>
> >If you truly want what you say you want, then taking punitive action is
> >short-sighted. You thereby lose any moral authority to complain about the
> >supposed failure of responsibility of gay men, since you will have had a
> >hand in creating exactly the atmosphere that you decry.
>
> I lose moral authority ? You must be joking !
Not at all. You can hardly complain that "gays are promiscuous"
when you don't give them the option of recognized relationships.
You can't have a culture in which gays are denigrated and vilified
and shut out of one of the most important institutions and then
complain that they are "promiscuous". What have you given them to
aim for as an ideal relationship?
>
> So you believe that society has an obligation to bail you Gays out of your own
> messes, when you become sick with AIDS, after all studies show that most HIV cases
> diagnosed in America were primarily transmitted by Gay Anal-Sexual practices ?
Your information is incorrect. I suggest that you visit the CDC or
Health Canada web sites and take a look at the stats. Over the last
few years the rate of new infections is DECLINING amongst gays and
INCREASING amongst heterosexuals. The vast majority of people in
the world infected with HIV are HETEROsexual. Only in the USA,
where your president ran and hid from AIDS and refused to do
anything about it do yo have this "AIDS is a gay disease" mentality.
>
> No, you have no moral high ground by robbing the public through taxation at the point
> of the IRS's guns to fund your AIDS related illnesses in healthcare costs,
I see... so in your part of the world there is not a single
heterosexual with AIDS? There is no need to spend money on
researching the mechanics of the human immune system so that we may
cure other immune deficiencies diseases like cancer?
> not to
> mention the fact that the Lavender Lobby is also guilty of deverting needed medical
> resources away from much needed research into the causes and cures of deadly diseases
> affecting everyone, not just the many AIDS-related illnesses and venereal diseases
> that Homosexuals contract in the course of practicing their anal-preversion filled
> way of life.
News flash: Research into the human immune system and how it
operates benefits ALL branches of medicine and health care!
>
> No, it is you Homosexuals who have LIED to the public for 20 years about the
> non-existant Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic", the so-called epidemic that has never
> come to America in over 20 years of the Gay Lobby's blatant lies to the contrary.
If you would take of your myopic "I am an American and nothing
exists outside the borders of the USA' glasses and take a good look
around you, you will discover that AIDS has reached epidemic
proportions amongst HETEROsexuals around the globe.
>
> >Prop. 22 is in no way a "defense" of marriage. No mixed-sex marriage will
> >be any better for its passage. You will instead have perpetuated an
> >atmosphere of exclusion that has direct negative consequences on the health
> >and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens,
>
> It seems that AIDS has had a "direct negative consequence on the health
> and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens", but as usual, your kind covers this up like
> cats covering up the mess in a sandbox to your own detriment.
Yes it does have direct consequences. Gays were the first
identifiable group to become victims of this disease and your
administration stood around doing nothing until it was to late. If
the administration had acted when the CDC sounded the alarm bells,
the rate of AIDS infections in the USA would be many times lower.
Fortunately gays are a bit more willing to talk about sex and thus
the safer sex message has been heard and understood by the gay
community. Furthermore, if you don't encourage people to form
monogamous long term relationships that are going to spread STDs -
weather they are Gay, Bi or Heterosexual.
>
> I give you credit for at least not having to lie about the facts about the American
> Gay AIDS epidemic, like most of your lying brethren, but I cant help but notice that
> you did not refute any of the content of the message, only resorting to the
> subterfuge of trying to connect the so-called "exclusion" of the Homosexual CULTure
> of death, to the rest of society.
>
> Like the parts of a body, sick with gangrene, the body of society is never going to
> willingly accept your sick, perverted Homosexual lifestyle, so you attempt to
> legislate it into existence, by force of law, knowing full well that this is the
> case.
Once again you are wrong. It is religionists who are bringing
forward the legislation to exclude gays and the courts are simply
saying you can't do that. There must be sound, secular reasons for
laws that discriminate. The government must show "compelling state
interest" if it wishes to deny or curtail the rights of anyone.
Here is a mental exercise for you; come up with one sound, secular
"compelling state interest" that would allow the government to
withhold the civil right of marriage to gays [the SCOTUS has ruled
that marriage, without qualifications of any kind, IS a civil right]
and post it here. NOte: "because it has always been done that way"
[appeal to tradition], or "because my holy book says..." [religion]
are NOT "compelling state interests".
You have your underoos in a knot because gays have finally taken
their complaints to the courts. What upsets you is that judges are
ruling in favour of gays... not because they like gays but because
the legal arguments make sense.
>
> Admittedly, In the short term it has been somewhat effective, but in the long term,
> it will not.
Wrong. I look at my own experience in my family and I see what
progress we Canadians have made in 15 years. From vilifying and
bashing gays at every turn to finally recognizing their
relationships as the same as any common law couple.
Gay marriage will be on your northern doorstep before the summer.
Get used to it!
<snip>
>
> Read the book " And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts.
>
> ISBN 0-14-011369-X
Excellent book. I walked away from it distressed at how the US
administration ignored a problem they could have solved simply
because it happened to an unpopular minority. I am pleased that
Canadians were more sensible about it and ran safer sex ads ont he
radio and TV to educate the population.
John DeSalvio
<dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:12:12 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
>
> >It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
> >toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
> >
> >"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
> >equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> >Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
> >Happiness -- "
>
> Life ? Of course !
>
> Liberty ? Of course !
>
> Pursuit of happiness? Well.............
>
> ..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for
the most part
> screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as
many partners
> as possible, then contracting a deadly diseases like AIDS, and _then_
expecting the
> American taxpayer to pay for all your anal-sexual "happiness" by funding
research
> into the _HOMOsexual AIDS epidemic, a virus spread by Gay anal-sexual
practices,
> for the most part, in America.
Is stupidity a career choice for you?
>
> All the while, government programs are massively undercutting Cancer and
Heart
> Disease research,
Cites? Real figures published by reputable sources, not from psychotic
religiously
funded front organizations.
> research that affects both Gay & Heterosexual alike, unlike AIDS
> that for, the most part, only affects those Americans inclined to
Homosexual behavior
> and illegal drug use, not most American Heterosexuals, as you liars want
the public
> to believe.
There has been more benefits from AIDS research for ALL viral diseases
in the past 15 years than ever before in history.
If you have never gotten a virus, then you do not exist.
For the first five years of the AIDS epidemic in the US, almst ALL
research monies
came from PRIVATE FUNDING, most from gay people.
>
> You Homosexuals have been lying about a supposed Heterosexual AIDS
"epidemic" since
> the early 1980's, to gain public support and government $$$ to fund your sick
> demented behaviors, despite the fact that such an epidemic never has and
never
> will come to America.
Then why are there 25 MILLION people with AIDS who are HETEROSEXUAL
around the world? Check with UN AIDS.
>
> Consider Prop. 22 as a long overdue payback for all your lies, you Gays !!
>
> We are going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths March 7 and
you don't
> like it one bit, do you ?
Aren't you afraid you'll catch AIDS?
I avoid getting AIDS by avoiding close contact with assholes like you.
>
> Good !!
>
> Pursue your anal-sex happiness with your own money, not mine !!
>
> Don't believe it ?
>
> Read "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael Fumento.
I have read the Myth of Michael Fumento, thank you very much.
It is a load of crap, and any credible researcher can tell you that.
John DeSalvio
> "L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
> >
> > Keith Wood wrote:
> > >
> > > "L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Diane Colson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:26:45 -0800, John Higdon
<no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >in article YSKs4.1275$pK3....@sea-read.news.verio.net, David
Kaye wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip 2 the point>
> > > > >
> > > > > What is wrong with you people ?
> > > >
> > > > Mormons who try to have their religious beliefs legislated
into the
> > > > secular law of the land.
> > >
> > > It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE Mormons.
> > >
> > > But thanks for playing.
> >
> > Sorry you loose. See the North American indians, the true owners
> > of the land, who's culture accepted and even encouraged same sex
> > marriages.
>
> Wrong answer. The American Indians weren't here first, according to the
> anthropologists.
>
> However, regarding the law of the land: this is the United States of
> America, which has never permitted marriage between members of the same
> sex.
>
> Now you don't even get a copy of our home game.
Then you will tell us where in the US Constitution -- the "law of the land" you
seem to be following -- there is any prohibiton of same-sex marriage?
Or, anywhere that marriage is even defined?
Thanks for playing, even if you don't know the game.
L. Michael Roberts
John Higdon wrote:
>
> in article 38B4E00F...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com, L. Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> > However the DOMA itself is in conflict with the US constitution.
>
> states such a definition of marriage. It was deemed Constitutional if it
> ALLOWED the states to write their own terms of acceptance of another state's
> marriage ceremony.
However it goes against the "full faith and credit" clause in your
constitution as well as going against the sexual discriminations
amendment. [Sorry I can't be more specific on the amendments
involved - I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on USEnet.]
>
> "And the Congress may by GENERAL LAWS [emphasis mine] prescribe the manner
> in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect
> thereof."
>
> It would take a pretty creative court to determine that such language did
> not permit Prop. 22. after specifically enabled by Congressional act.
>
> > It will only be a matter of time [and taxpayer dollars] before it is
> > brought before the SCOTUS and struck down.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see that in the cards. Passage of Prop. 22 will be a
> major screw job on GLBT legal rights.
>
> > Besides, just what exactly is the DOMA "defending" marriage
> > against?
>
> A more appropriate name would be "keep them homos in their place" act. But
> people who support it need to feel "good" about it. Some of them actually
> believe that it has to do with morality and purity and all the other warm
> and fuzzies used to cover the reality of limiting the rights of others.
I guess it's just like that Anita Bryant thing... She did not call
her group the "Prevent ALL citizens form obtaining EQUAL rights"
group... but rather the "Save the children" group. Trading ont the
warm fuzzies is something the religionists do exceptionally well -
when they are not otherwise occupied in guilt tripping their
adherents into making "Love offerings".
<sig snip>
L. Michael Roberts
Russell McGregor wrote:
>
> In article <38b4ed19.865031@news-server>,
> wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:28:33 GMT, Russell McGregor
> > <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > You are at the very nub of the problem -- IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN as the
> > Mormons demonstrate with a hideous clarity their inability to learn
> > anything useful from a century of discrimination and mistreatment.
>
> The analogy, which those on your side of the argument seem to love to
> draw, is imperfect, and thus a fallacy.
>
> Nobody is trying to take away your right to vote, to hold public
> office, or to serve on a jury. Nobody is going to throw you in jail
> for living with George. Nobody will prosecute you for a new offence
> every day you stay with George. Nobody is trying to seize any property
> held collectively by any group with which you affiliate. Nobody will
> send an army to drive you out of your homes.
However being on the receiving end of such persecution as the early
Mormons suffered has apparently not taught their descendants
anything! After suffering such discrimination in the past, one
would think the Mormons would be a little more sensitive to the
plight of others rather than spending millions of dollars to deny
people EQUAL standing before the law.
<snip 2 end>
John DeSalvio
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> In article <B4D96250.15875%no-...@gotmoo.com>, John Higdon
> <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
>
> > in article nospam-4F56B4....@news.swbell.net, Michael Wise
> > wrote:
> >
> > > But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow
> > > a
> > > minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister. Is
> > > that treating a huge group of people "unequally"?
> >
> > You are missing the point. California law does not allow marriage between
> > first cousins, but it recognizes such marriages performed in other
> > states. I
> > don't see any proposition to close THAT loophole. No, indeed, only one
> > that
> > screws homosexuals.
>
> If another state recognized as valid the marriage of a 15 year-old to an
> 82 year-old...should California be required to recognize it as well?
That horse has been dead for years.
Stop beating it, because there is little left to beat but mush.
Then get back to us when you understand "informed consent"
and contractual law.
You name belies your wisdom.
John DeSalvio
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> In article <38b53f3f.6218867@news-server>, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward
> Stewart) wrote:
>
> > >> Proposition 22 supporters by their very nature have no
> > >> respect for the basis of the American social contract,
> > >> the idea that all are equal under the law.
> >
> >
> > I had thought that Mike was going to restrict his observations to the
> > vital issue of "sign stealing" and avoid the issues behind the
> > proposed legislation -- guess I must have misunderstood his earlier
> > post.
>
>
> No, he just keeps getting pulled into a debate about homosexual marriage
> itself.
>
>
>
> > >But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow a
> > >minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister.
> >
> > Red herring -- and, BTW, this particular herring has been too long out
> > of the water and off the ice.-- it stinks!
> >
> > Each of the above prohibited combinations is forbidden for a real
> > reason -- minors cannot give informed consent
>
>
> I think you're discriminating against minors by thinking they can't give
> "informed consent." That the same thing people used to say about black
> people. Haven't we laearned?
>
>
>
> > Sooner -- FAR sooner than you may in your xenophobia and intolerance
> > imagine.
>
>
> Pass the crack pipe, please.
No, you evidently have had enough.
John DeSalvio
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> In article <38B422E6...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com>, "L. Michael Roberts"
> <News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow
> > > a
> > > minor and adult to marry each other....
> >
> > Look up the concept of "informed consent" and get back to us....
>
>
> And what makes you think a minor can't give informed consent? A bias
> against minors? Are you minorphobic?
No, the laws of the individual states are.
>
>
>
> > It's here already. Gay marriages have been legal in some nations
> > in Europe for over a decade now. A bill just passed second reading
> > in the Canadian parliament that would grant common law marriage
> > status to any gay couple that have been together for more than a
> > year. GAy marriage will be on your northern doorstep in a matter of
> > weeks!
>
>
>
> More power to them.
And to us, as the US eventually realizes it is being laughed at by most
other countries in Western Europe for its archaic, puritanical views on
issues relating to sex and civilization.
John DeSalvio
<no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
> in article 38b4...@news.provide.net, James Doemer wrote:
>
> > However, if you read the US Constitution, which is the law of the land,
> > including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
> > issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in another
> > state.
>
> Article IV, Section 1.
>
> > As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged as
> > unconstitutional in the future.
>
> Probably not. In that section, Congress is given power to adjust the
> specifics. The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act", Clinton's masterpiece
> to woo the south last election, makes those specific terms of marriage
> acceptance individually definable in the states.
It is my belief that Clinton voted for DOMA, and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell
Don't
Pursue" issues, so that it would wind up in the Supreme Court, where a
decision cannot be overturned by the whims of a different administration.
Clinton is a lawyer.
John DeSalvio
<dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:41:30 GMT, John Wilkinson <john...@home.com> wrote:
> >Your rant neatly avoids the obvious.
>
> Truth, not rant. No, it seems it is you who are avoiding the issues:
>
> That being the attempt by the Gay Lobby to force their will on a
tolerant, though
> unaccepting public through the legislative process, not understanding
that you cannot
> legislate tolerance.
Examp;les of this "force," please?
>
> Fact: You will NEVER have the complete acceptance of the general public
no matter
> how many "pro-Gay" laws you people try to pass.
No, we are aware of that. So are Blacks, who will always have to deal with white
supremicists, we will always have to deal with bigoted assholes like you.
But, year after year, your ilk are getting fewer in number. The more the
general
public gets to know individual gay people, the more they realize we are NOT
what you so desperately want us to be with you pathetic lies.
>
> If you continue in such behavior you will find out that decent
Heterosexual people
> will no longer even _tolerate_ your disgusting, anti-life behavior being
shoved in
> their faces either, and the will shun you back to the closet as before.
In your dreams, bigot.
>
> You will find that out March 7, 2000, to be sure. That's will be a long
overdue
> payback time for you Gays !
What? A bump in the road will derail us?
You just keep believing that, sweetheart.
>
> >The most rational message you could hope to send (as opposed to "We are
> >going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths,") would be to
> >encourage people to enter into longtime committed relationships, with the
> >goal of limiting sexual contacts outside the relationship.
> >
> >That would make sense. Instead you've chose precisely the action least
> >likely to have any positive effect that you claim to support.
>
> The positive effect , a wake-up call for you Gays, will come March 7
when society
> refutes your sick, perverted lifestyle for all to see.
Spare us the crap.
>
> >If you truly want what you say you want, then taking punitive action is
> >short-sighted. You thereby lose any moral authority to complain about the
> >supposed failure of responsibility of gay men, since you will have had a
> >hand in creating exactly the atmosphere that you decry.
>
> I lose moral authority ? You must be joking !
You are joking if you think YOU are an example of "moral authority."
>
> So you believe that society has an obligation to bail you Gays out of your own
> messes, when you become sick with AIDS, after all studies show that most
HIV cases
> diagnosed in America were primarily transmitted by Gay Anal-Sexual practices ?
Yes, I see stupidity IS a career choice for you.
> No, you have no moral high ground by robbing the public through taxation
at the point
> of the IRS's guns to fund your AIDS related illnesses in healthcare
costs, not to
> mention the fact that the Lavender Lobby is also guilty of deverting
needed medical
> resources away from much needed research into the causes and cures of
deadly diseases
> affecting everyone, not just the many AIDS-related illnesses and
venereal diseases
> that Homosexuals contract in the course of practicing their
anal-preversion filled
> way of life.
More refuted crap.
>
> No, it is you Homosexuals who have LIED to the public for 20 years about the
> non-existant Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic", the so-called epidemic that
has never
> come to America in over 20 years of the Gay Lobby's blatant lies to the
contrary.
You might want to wipe that brown stuff from Michael Fumento off your nose.
>
> >Prop. 22 is in no way a "defense" of marriage. No mixed-sex marriage will
> >be any better for its passage. You will instead have perpetuated an
> >atmosphere of exclusion that has direct negative consequences on the health
> >and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens,
>
> It seems that AIDS has had a "direct negative consequence on the health
> and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens", but as usual, your kind covers
this up like
> cats covering up the mess in a sandbox to your own detriment.
What about the great majority of gays and lesbians that DON'T have AIDS?
Why am I attempting to debate such a stupid imbecile as you?
Kill-file time.
John DeSalvio
<d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
> Diane Colson wrote the quoted material below:
>
> ">>
> ">>>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
> ">>>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
>
> I don't know if you're aware of it (you don't seem to be aware of much),
> but you are needlessly quoting and requoting others and making a huge
> post, which few if any people are going to read. Consider trimming your
> quotes down to the essentials of what you're responding to.
If Diane Colson were to trim her posts to essentials, they would be empty
of anything from her.
John Wilkinson
Diane, you didn't read a word that I wrote, did you?
It's clear you're not looking for solutions to problems.
In alt.politics.homosexuality,
<udj9bsk1o507j1o3l...@4ax.com>, Diane Colson
<dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:41:30 GMT, John Wilkinson <john...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.politics.homosexuality,
>><2o79bs0llgknk6lbq...@4ax.com>, Diane Colson
>><dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:12:12 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
>>>>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
>>>>
>>>>"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>>>>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>>>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
>>>>Happiness -- "
>>>
>>>Life ? Of course !
>>>
>>>Liberty ? Of course !
>>>
>>>Pursuit of happiness? Well.............
>>>
>>>..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for the most part
>>>screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as many partners
>>>as possible, then contracting a deadly diseases like AIDS, and _then_ expecting the
>>>American taxpayer to pay for all your anal-sexual "happiness" by funding research
>>>into the _HOMOsexual AIDS epidemic, a virus spread by Gay anal-sexual practices,
>>>for the most part, in America.
>>>
>>>All the while, government programs are massively undercutting Cancer and Heart
>>>Disease research, research that affects both Gay & Heterosexual alike, unlike AIDS
>>>that for, the most part, only affects those Americans inclined to Homosexual behavior
>>>and illegal drug use, not most American Heterosexuals, as you liars want the public
>>>to believe.
>>>
>>>You Homosexuals have been lying about a supposed Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic" since
>>>the early 1980's, to gain public support and government $$$ to fund your sick
>>>demented behaviors, despite the fact that such an epidemic never has and never
>>>will come to America.
>>>
>>>Consider Prop. 22 as a long overdue payback for all your lies, you Gays !!
>>>
>>>We are going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths March 7 and you don't
>>>like it one bit, do you ?
>>>
>>>Good !!
>>>
>>>Pursue your anal-sex happiness with your own money, not mine !!
>>>
>>>Don't believe it ?
>>>
>>>Read "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael Fumento.
>>>
>>>ISBN 0-89526-729-2
>>>
>>>----------------------
>>>
>>>Defend Marriage - Vote "YES" on Prop 22 March 7
>>
>>Your rant neatly avoids the obvious.
>
>Truth, not rant. No, it seems it is you who are avoiding the issues:
>
>That being the attempt by the Gay Lobby to force their will on a tolerant, though
>unaccepting public through the legislative process, not understanding that you cannot
>legislate tolerance.
>
>Fact: You will NEVER have the complete acceptance of the general public no matter
>how many "pro-Gay" laws you people try to pass.
>
>If you continue in such behavior you will find out that decent Heterosexual people
>will no longer even _tolerate_ your disgusting, anti-life behavior being shoved in
>their faces either, and the will shun you back to the closet as before.
>
>You will find that out March 7, 2000, to be sure. That's will be a long overdue
>payback time for you Gays !
>
>>The most rational message you could hope to send (as opposed to "We are
>>going to eat you Gay liars alive at the voting booths,") would be to
>>encourage people to enter into longtime committed relationships, with the
>>goal of limiting sexual contacts outside the relationship.
>>
>>That would make sense. Instead you've chose precisely the action least
>>likely to have any positive effect that you claim to support.
>
>The positive effect , a wake-up call for you Gays, will come March 7 when society
>refutes your sick, perverted lifestyle for all to see.
>
>>If you truly want what you say you want, then taking punitive action is
>>short-sighted. You thereby lose any moral authority to complain about the
>>supposed failure of responsibility of gay men, since you will have had a
>>hand in creating exactly the atmosphere that you decry.
>
>I lose moral authority ? You must be joking !
>
>So you believe that society has an obligation to bail you Gays out of your own
>messes, when you become sick with AIDS, after all studies show that most HIV cases
>diagnosed in America were primarily transmitted by Gay Anal-Sexual practices ?
>
>
>No, you have no moral high ground by robbing the public through taxation at the point
>of the IRS's guns to fund your AIDS related illnesses in healthcare costs, not to
>mention the fact that the Lavender Lobby is also guilty of deverting needed medical
>resources away from much needed research into the causes and cures of deadly diseases
>affecting everyone, not just the many AIDS-related illnesses and venereal diseases
>that Homosexuals contract in the course of practicing their anal-preversion filled
>way of life.
>
>No, it is you Homosexuals who have LIED to the public for 20 years about the
>non-existant Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic", the so-called epidemic that has never
>come to America in over 20 years of the Gay Lobby's blatant lies to the contrary.
>
>>Prop. 22 is in no way a "defense" of marriage. No mixed-sex marriage will
>>be any better for its passage. You will instead have perpetuated an
>>atmosphere of exclusion that has direct negative consequences on the health
>>and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens,
>
>It seems that AIDS has had a "direct negative consequence on the health
>and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens", but as usual, your kind covers this up like
>cats covering up the mess in a sandbox to your own detriment.
>
>I give you credit for at least not having to lie about the facts about the American
>Gay AIDS epidemic, like most of your lying brethren, but I cant help but notice that
>you did not refute any of the content of the message, only resorting to the
>subterfuge of trying to connect the so-called "exclusion" of the Homosexual CULTure
>of death, to the rest of society.
>
>Like the parts of a body, sick with gangrene, the body of society is never going to
>willingly accept your sick, perverted Homosexual lifestyle, so you attempt to
>legislate it into existence, by force of law, knowing full well that this is the
>case.
>
>Admittedly, In the short term it has been somewhat effective, but in the long term,
>it will not.
>
>You will find out that sad fact of life (for you) come March 7, when we bring down
>the house with a resounding "YES" vote on Prop 22.
>
>
>>to their detriment and yours.
>
>Nope.
>
>It is the Male Homosexual community that has a problem with detrimental viruses, not
>to mention abnormal sexual proclivities, not American Adult Heterosexuals.
>
>>Please re-think your position.
>
>What's to think about ? The truth is out there for anyone who cares to check it out.
>
>Don't believe me ?
>
>Read the book " And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts.
>
>ISBN 0-14-011369-X
>
>------------------------------------------
>
>Defend Marriage - Vote "YES" on Prop 22 March 7
---
The Old Timer
Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38baf755.3484447@news-server...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:02:54 -0800, Michael Wise <nos...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <B4D96250.15875%no-...@gotmoo.com>, John Higdon
> ><no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> in article nospam-4F56B4....@news.swbell.net, Michael Wise
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't
allow
> >> > a
> >> > that treating a huge group of people "unequally"?
> >>
> >> You are missing the point. California law does not allow marriage
between
> >> first cousins, but it recognizes such marriages performed in other
> >> states. I
> >> don't see any proposition to close THAT loophole. No, indeed, only one
> >> that
> >> screws homosexuals.
> >
> >If another state recognized as valid the marriage of a 15 year-old to an
> >82 year-old...should California be required to recognize it as well?
> >
>
> Yes indeed. California IS required to recognize such a marriage. --
> how can this be news to you? I had supposed that you were trying to
> pass yourself off as an expert of some sort in these matters.
>
> ward
Ward, you and all the rest of your little boyfriends here, are lying through
your teeth. You do have teeth, right? You don't know diddly shit about
constitutional law and you tried to tell everyone that Hawaii and Vermont
marriage laws did not define marriage as between a "man and a woman". That's
a lie. I posted the laws, you read them, you and your little boyfriends are
blatantly lying about it and as a result are going to see this whole matter
splattered back in your lying faces. Un-natural sex is not a basis for
changing marriage laws. And homosexual agendas should be relegated to the
bottom of the pile of issues to be considered in the light of all the
starving kids, folks without healthcare and other more important problems we
are faced with.
--
Pointing out the other political parties'
scandals makes you a loyalist. Making
excuses for your own parties scandals
makes you an idiot. Being disgusted with
government dishonesty makes you an
American. Failure to demand government
adherence to constitutional principles, dis-
honors your ancestors.
The OldTimer
James Doemer
--
http://www.provide.net/~bigtoe
Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message news:38B4B0EC...@bctv.com...
>
>
> James Doemer wrote:
> >
> > --
> > http://www.provide.net/~bigtoe
> > John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:B4D9DA70.15991%no-...@gotmoo.com...
> > > in article 38B49288...@bctv.com, Keith Wood wrote:
> > >
> > > > It has been the law of the land since long before there WERE
Mormons.
> > > >
> > > > But thanks for playing.
> > >
> > > What has been the law of the land? Refusal to recognize marriages
> > performed
> > > in other states between same sex partners is certainly not the current
law
> > > in California. That is what 22 is all about.
> > >
> >
> > However, if you read the US Constitution, which is the law of the land,
> > including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
> > issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in
another
> > state. As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged
as
> > unconstitutional in the future.
>
> Yeah, just like the ban on "assault weapons" and the refusal of CA to
> respect the concealed weapons permits from other states.
It's not something we need debate, it either will happen, or it won't. Ask
the good
people in Colorado. My personal belief is that it will be declared
unconstitutional
at some point in the future, because it is blatantly so.
Fenris
> > Sorry you loose. See the North American indians, the true owners
> > of the land, who's culture accepted and even encouraged same sex
> > marriages.
>
> Wrong answer. The American Indians weren't here first, according to the
> anthropologists.
Right, their ancestors were.
> However, regarding the law of the land: this is the United States of
> America, which has never permitted marriage between members of the same
> sex.
So what? We have a Constitutional commitment to life, liberty, pursuit of
happiness, and separation of church and state. Learn to mind your own
business.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient
warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it
will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because
in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are
good reasons for REMONSTRATING with him, but NOT for COMPELLING him or
visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise."
--John Stuart Mill
--
To e-mail me replace "spamsucks" with "azstarnet.com"
Diane Colson
<News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote:
>
>Diane Colson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:41:30 GMT, John Wilkinson <john...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In alt.politics.homosexuality,
>> ><2o79bs0llgknk6lbq...@4ax.com>, Diane Colson
>> ><dco...@homenet.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:12:12 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >Your rant neatly avoids the obvious.
>>
>> Truth, not rant. No, it seems it is you who are avoiding the issues:
>>
>> That being the attempt by the Gay Lobby
>
> Where is this lobby located? Is it tastefully decorated?
Act-Up ! Gay Pride. You know of whom I speak.
The radical element of Homosexual society with an in-your-face attitude.
>> to force their will on a tolerant, though
>> unaccepting public through the legislative process, not understanding that you cannot
>> legislate tolerance.
>
> It worked for the president [Eisenhower?] who mandated racial
>integration on the armed forces. There was a lot of complaining
>over that for a while but it soon became a non issue.
Many people accepted and liked Black people, as individuals, long before they were
freed, not to mention their integration into them armed forces, which has nothing to
do with civilian life, BTW.
FYI, My husband has his hair cut by a Gay hairstylist, which he get along with fine,
as he dosent make an issue of it, but as a whole he, like most Heterosexual men
despises the radical Gay agenda and most blatant Homosexuals.
You are comparing apples and oranges, as usual.
>>
>> Fact: You will NEVER have the complete acceptance of the general public no matter
>> how many "pro-Gay" laws you people try to pass.
>
> Who cares about acceptance? What we are talking about here is
>civil rights and EQUALITY before the law! There are certain
>religionists that I will never accept... but I tolerate them and I
>don't seek to take away their civil rights no matter how kooky I may
>think their beliefs are.
You have all the civil rights others enjoy now. You can freely travel, vote, own
property,ect. You do not have the right to milk society of its tax dollars, to feed
your sick, twisted lifestyle as you liars have done for many years now
>> If you continue in such behavior you will find out that decent Heterosexual people
>> will no longer even _tolerate_ your disgusting, anti-life behavior being shoved in
>> their faces either, and the will shun you back to the closet as before.
>
> Listen... When my brother came out to the family it caused us a lot
>of anguish and some of us had to do a 180 degree turn of attitude.
>My brother was still the same man I had grown up with he had just
>revealed something we had not known before. As more and more gays
>come out and refuse to hide any longer, more people are discovering
>they they are friends, neighbours, relatives, co-workers and family.
That's is your brother. As a whole Homosexuals will never be accepted by Heterosexual
society. Most straight men despise you people, and rightly so.
Your lifestyle is one of death, not life.
> Why should my brother and his partner of 12+ years not be entitled
>to the same civil rights and protections before the law as my sister
>got for her relationships? In the same 12+ years, my sister has
>been married twice and is currently divorced - she was not much of
>an example when it came to "family values". When the bill currently
>before parliament passes shortly, I will be on the phone to
>congratulate my brother as his relationship will then be recognized
>as "common-law" and he will at least be entitled to some legal
>protections.
For how long ?
Its well known by most straights that you folks have multiple partners every year.
Your acting as though most Gays have monogamous lifestyles, which they do not for the
most part, is just another in a long set of lies you feed the public.
>>
>> You will find that out March 7, 2000, to be sure. That's will be a long overdue
>> payback time for you Gays !
>
> The vote will make little or no difference in the long run.
>Voting in an unconstitutional amendment to the laws just means that
>it will take a few years longer, and a few million in taxpayer
>dollars, to have it struck down by the courts.
Says you. It will stand firm for all to see. The beginning of the end for the radical
Gay agenda is upon you.
><snip>
>
>> >If you truly want what you say you want, then taking punitive action is
>> >short-sighted. You thereby lose any moral authority to complain about the
>> >supposed failure of responsibility of gay men, since you will have had a
>> >hand in creating exactly the atmosphere that you decry.
>>
>> I lose moral authority ? You must be joking !
>
> Not at all. You can hardly complain that "gays are promiscuous"
>when you don't give them the option of recognized relationships.
Gays are promiscuous, by their own admission in private. Read Randy Shilts book "and
The Band Played On". We know that you people are nothing like most Heterosexuals.
You continue, despite all the sickness caused by the HIV virus, to practice your
perverted anal sexual lifestyle.
>You can't have a culture in which gays are denigrated and vilified
>and shut out of one of the most important institutions and then
>complain that they are "promiscuous". What have you given them to
>aim for as an ideal relationship?
No most of you Gays don't want relationships, you want sex with as many partners as
you can 24/7. That is how it is for most practitioners of your sordid lifestyle of
death. You only portray it as otherwise to APPEAR more normal to John Q. Public.
>> So you believe that society has an obligation to bail you Gays out of your own
>> messes, when you become sick with AIDS, after all studies show that most HIV cases
>> diagnosed in America were primarily transmitted by Gay Anal-Sexual practices ?
>
> Your information is incorrect. I suggest that you visit the CDC or
>Health Canada web sites and take a look at the stats. Over the last
>few years the rate of new infections is DECLINING amongst gays and
>INCREASING amongst heterosexuals. The vast majority of people in
>the world infected with HIV are HETEROsexual. Only in the USA,
>where your president ran and hid from AIDS and refused to do
>anything about it do yo have this "AIDS is a gay disease" mentality.
AIDS is a Gay disease in North America and most other places in the world for that
mater, except Sub-Saharan Africa, where Bi-Sexuality, not Homosexuality is accepted.
You people lie even about that fact, in your attempts to have society see you as
"normal" You are clearly not normal by American standards, with your sick perverted
sexual practices and multiple sex partner lifestyles.
>> No, you have no moral high ground by robbing the public through taxation at the point
>> of the IRS's guns to fund your AIDS related illnesses in healthcare costs,
>
> I see... so in your part of the world there is not a single
>heterosexual with AIDS? There is no need to spend money on
>researching the mechanics of the human immune system so that we may
>cure other immune deficiencies diseases like cancer?
At the expense of studies into the causes and cures for major diseases like Heart
disease and Cancer, that effect far more people then AIDS, that still only affects
promiscuous Homosexuals and injectable illegal drug users for the most part ?
No.
>> not to
>> mention the fact that the Lavender Lobby is also guilty of deverting needed medical
>> resources away from much needed research into the causes and cures of deadly diseases
>> affecting everyone, not just the many AIDS-related illnesses and venereal diseases
>> that Homosexuals contract in the course of practicing their anal-preversion filled
>> way of life.
>
> News flash: Research into the human immune system and how it
>operates benefits ALL branches of medicine and health care!
If that were so, you would be correct. But what you Gays really want is a cure for
one virus, HIV, so that you can continue to have round the clock sex with as nay of
your brethren as you can, without dying of your sick practices.
Even before AIDS, the rates of venereal disease and other illnesses were off the
charts for Homosexuals, compared to Heterosexuals.
The average age at death for an American Gay ?
41 years old.
Average age for an American Heterosexual male at death ?
77 Years old.
Enough said on those facts.
>>
>> No, it is you Homosexuals who have LIED to the public for 20 years about the
>> non-existant Heterosexual AIDS "epidemic", the so-called epidemic that has never
>> come to America in over 20 years of the Gay Lobby's blatant lies to the contrary.
>
> If you would take of your myopic "I am an American and nothing
>exists outside the borders of the USA' glasses and take a good look
>around you, you will discover that AIDS has reached epidemic
>proportions amongst HETEROsexuals around the globe.
No, as I said before the, practice of Bi-Sexuality, not Homosexuality is indeed
accepted in Sub-Saharan Africa, Homosexuality, by itself , as practiced by the
radical Gays in America is not accepted.
>>
>> >Prop. 22 is in no way a "defense" of marriage. No mixed-sex marriage will
>> >be any better for its passage. You will instead have perpetuated an
>> >atmosphere of exclusion that has direct negative consequences on the health
>> >and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens,
>>
>> It seems that AIDS has had a "direct negative consequence on the health
>> and well-being of lesbian/gay citizens", but as usual, your kind covers this up like
>> cats covering up the mess in a sandbox to your own detriment.
>
> Yes it does have direct consequences. Gays were the first
>identifiable group to become victims of this disease and your
>administration stood around doing nothing until it was to late. If
>the administration had acted when the CDC sounded the alarm bells,
>the rate of AIDS infections in the USA would be many times lower.
Oh, and how is that ?
Would you people have voluntarily reduced you perverted sexual activities ? You have
not done so in 20 years of the AIDS epidemic here in America. Even now you people are
reopening your bathhouses and infecting each other again, now that
protease-inhibitors, Viagra and other treatments allow you to gain enough strength
to pass the HIV virus along to another young Gay male, dooming him to a life of
medications, illness, and early death.
There was little treatment for HIV back in the early eighty's when epidemiologists
first identified the HIV virus and placed it right on the door-step of Homosexual
society and anal sexual acts.
> Fortunately gays are a bit more willing to talk about sex and thus
>the safer sex message has been heard and understood by the gay
>community. Furthermore, if you don't encourage people to form
>monogamous long term relationships that are going to spread STDs -
>weather they are Gay, Bi or Heterosexual.
In no way will making marriage "legal" for Gays stop your sick perverted multiple
anal sex partner lifestyle, and I'll bet you know that.
No, this is about money and power, and forcing your lifestyle on the public by
legislation, not you people wanting to have long term relationships.
The few of you Gays that really want long term partners, can and do that already.
>>
>> I give you credit for at least not having to lie about the facts about the American
>> Gay AIDS epidemic, like most of your lying brethren, but I cant help but notice that
>> you did not refute any of the content of the message, only resorting to the
>> subterfuge of trying to connect the so-called "exclusion" of the Homosexual CULTure
>> of death, to the rest of society.
>>
>> Like the parts of a body, sick with gangrene, the body of society is never going to
>> willingly accept your sick, perverted Homosexual lifestyle, so you attempt to
>> legislate it into existence, by force of law, knowing full well that this is the
>> case.
>
> Once again you are wrong. It is religionists who are bringing
>forward the legislation to exclude gays and the courts are simply
>saying you can't do that. There must be sound, secular reasons for
>laws that discriminate. The government must show "compelling state
>interest" if it wishes to deny or curtail the rights of anyone.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It will always be that way in America.
Get used to it.
> Here is a mental exercise for you; come up with one sound, secular
>"compelling state interest" that would allow the government to
>withhold the civil right of marriage to gays [the SCOTUS has ruled
>that marriage, without qualifications of any kind, IS a civil right]
>and post it here. NOte: "because it has always been done that way"
>[appeal to tradition], or "because my holy book says..." [religion]
>are NOT "compelling state interests".
> You have your underoos in a knot because gays have finally taken
>their complaints to the courts. What upsets you is that judges are
>ruling in favour of gays... not because they like gays but because
>the legal arguments make sense.
To you they do.
To American society, they do not. You are still and always will be the butt of jokes
and ridicule, particularly by straight men, who despise radical Gays particular in
the military.
>> Admittedly, In the short term it has been somewhat effective, but in the long term,
>> it will not.
>
> Wrong. I look at my own experience in my family and I see what
>progress we Canadians have made in 15 years. From vilifying and
>bashing gays at every turn to finally recognizing their
>relationships as the same as any common law couple.
There is a different between passing laws recognizing you sordid lifestyle and having
g the public accept it.
> Gay marriage will be on your northern doorstep before the summer.
>Get used to it!
Prop 22 will pass by a landslide in March.
Get used to it !
Ted Krueger
Diane Colson wrote:
>
> ..........What most of you Gays seem to define as "happiness" is, for the most part
> screwing each other through bathhouse "Glory-Holes", having sex with as many partners
> as possible
Give me a break.
John Higdon
> Act-Up ! Gay Pride. You know of whom I speak.
"Gay Pride" doesn't seem to have a listing. In what city is it located?
> Many people accepted and liked Black people, as individuals, long before they
> were
> freed, not to mention their integration into them armed forces, which has
> nothing to
> do with civilian life, BTW.
Yeah those blackies can be a bit of all right. As long as they stay in their
place and don't make any noise, they're good to use on the front lines and
stuff. How big of you to suggest that many folks accept Black People.
> FYI, My husband has his hair cut by a Gay hairstylist, which he get along with
> fine,
> as he dosent make an issue of it, but as a whole he, like most Heterosexual
> men
> despises the radical Gay agenda and most blatant Homosexuals.
As you have pointed out, as long as sub-people know their place and stay
there, no problems will arise. I'm very impressed that your husband allows a
filthy homo to touch his hair. That has got to win major awards for
acceptance and tolerance.
> You have all the civil rights others enjoy now. You can freely travel, vote,
> own
> property,ect.
And I hear they let homos out of their cells at least once a week for
exercise, as well. I had no idea they let homos own property, though.
> You do not have the right to milk society of its tax dollars, to
> feed
> your sick, twisted lifestyle as you liars have done for many years now
Yes--only straight people can do that!
> That's is your brother. As a whole Homosexuals will never be accepted by
> Heterosexual
> society. Most straight men despise you people, and rightly so.
Someone told me once (I don't really believe it) that EVERY homo is
someons's brother or sister or son or daughter or mother or father or
friend. But I think you must be right: homos just appear out of nowhere and
nobody likes them.
> Your lifestyle is one of death, not life.
Straights live forever! Rock on!
> Its well known by most straights that you folks have multiple partners every
> year.
> Your acting as though most Gays have monogamous lifestyles, which they do not
> for the
> most part, is just another in a long set of lies you feed the public.
Yeah! And we're gonna keep it that way. We're gonna make sure that there is
absolutely no mechanism in place for ANY kind of stable queer relationship.
> Says you. It will stand firm for all to see. The beginning of the end for the
> radical
> Gay agenda is upon you.
Say, do you happen to have a copy of that Gay Agenda handy? My sister sent
it to me once, but I lost it.
> Gays are promiscuous, by their own admission in private. Read Randy Shilts
> book "and
> The Band Played On". We know that you people are nothing like most
> Heterosexuals.
You tell 'em! Hell, I've seen homos eat their young. I've seen homos with
two heads, three hands, and eleven fingers. Instead of shopping at the
supermarket, they forage for food in the sewers. Instead of paying rent,
they seduce their landlords! And your husband lets one of them homos touch
his hair? Oh...you are a tolerant couple!
> You continue, despite all the sickness caused by the HIV virus, to practice
> your
> perverted anal sexual lifestyle.
What about the homos that don't do "anal"? There has got to be something
really disgusting about THEM!
> No most of you Gays don't want relationships, you want sex with as many
> partners as
> you can 24/7. That is how it is for most practitioners of your sordid
> lifestyle of
> death. You only portray it as otherwise to APPEAR more normal to John Q.
> Public.
You tell 'em! Most of the homos I know THINK they want relationships and say
so. You know better than they do what they want--I can tell by reading your
rational, intelligent discourse. You have obviously studied this matter in
depth.
> AIDS is a Gay disease in North America and most other places in the world for
> that
> mater, except Sub-Saharan Africa, where Bi-Sexuality, not Homosexuality is
> accepted.
You ought to be very happy that in North America, straight people such as
yourself are immune from AIDS--it being a Gay Disease and all.
> At the expense of studies into the causes and cures for major diseases like
> Heart
> disease and Cancer, that effect far more people then AIDS, that still only
> affects
> promiscuous Homosexuals and injectable illegal drug users for the most part ?
So the straight people who have died from AIDS (by the thousands) were
really filthy homos?
> The average age at death for an American Gay ?
>
> 41 years old.
"41" is a very distant memory for me.
> No, as I said before the, practice of Bi-Sexuality, not Homosexuality is
> indeed
> accepted in Sub-Saharan Africa, Homosexuality, by itself , as practiced by
> the
> radical Gays in America is not accepted.
Is that right? Since I seem to have discovered an expert on this topic,
please answer a question that has been bothering me for years: how does the
HIV know a homo when it sees one?
> In no way will making marriage "legal" for Gays stop your sick perverted
> multiple
> anal sex partner lifestyle, and I'll bet you know that.
You're probably right. It sure doesn't stop multiple partners and perverted
sex in the straight community.
> No, this is about money and power, and forcing your lifestyle on the public by
> legislation, not you people wanting to have long term relationships.
>
> The few of you Gays that really want long term partners, can and do that
> already.
Yeah, it's a trick. They just SAY they want them and want legal facilitation
for stable relationships. Then after they get what they say they want,
they'll jump up, pull off their masks and do all kinds of perversions.
Diane, you have THEIR number, all right.
> Marriage is between a man and a woman. It will always be that way in America.
>
> Get used to it.
Yeah--America--love it or leave it, but by all means get back in your place!
> To American society, they do not. You are still and always will be the butt of
> jokes
> and ridicule, particularly by straight men, who despise radical Gays
> particular in
> the military.
But aren't they good to put up in the front lines like those blacks? What
were you saying about straight men's butts?
> Prop 22 will pass by a landslide in March.
>
> Get used to it !
All you fags get back in your cages, or we may not let you out for exercise
once a week anymore!
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 415 428 2697 | Silicon Valley, CA 95150-7648 | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
+1 408 264 4115 |
TheJordan6
>Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 19:15 EST
>Message-id: <891t78$9qr$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>
>In article <20000223190050...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
>TheJordan6 <thejo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E. Mark Ping)
>>>Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 17:56 EST
>>>Message-id: <891oid$8vm$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>>>
>>>In article <B4D99972.1591C%no-...@gotmoo.com>,
>>>John Higdon <no-...@gotmoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Up until a relatively few years ago,
>>>>blacks were not permitted to hold the priesthood (which shut them out of
>>>>many higher church blessings and benefits). This policy, through
>revelation,
>>>>was reversed sometime in the 1980s.
>>>Point of order: the revelation on the priesthood was in 1978.
>>And what was the date of the revelation that instituted the ban, Mark?
>Relevance?
>Given your active posting history on this group, I imagine you know
>the answer to the question. Hence why are you asking?
It was a rhetorical question designed to make people think, Mark.
Sorry to have bothered you.
Randy J.
James Doemer
Michael Wise <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nospam-D82381....@news.swbell.net...
> In article <38b53f3f.6218867@news-server>, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward
> Stewart) wrote:
>
> > >> Proposition 22 supporters by their very nature have no
> > >> respect for the basis of the American social contract,
> > >> the idea that all are equal under the law.
> >
> >
> > I had thought that Mike was going to restrict his observations to the
> > vital issue of "sign stealing" and avoid the issues behind the
> > proposed legislation -- guess I must have misunderstood his earlier
> > post.
>
>
> No, he just keeps getting pulled into a debate about homosexual marriage
> itself.
>
>
>
a
> > >minor and adult to marry each other....nor a brother and his sister.
> >
> > of the water and off the ice.-- it stinks!
> >
> > Each of the above prohibited combinations is forbidden for a real
> > reason -- minors cannot give informed consent
>
>
> I think you're discriminating against minors by thinking they can't give
> "informed consent." That the same thing people used to say about black
> people. Haven't we laearned?
>
Whatever you "think" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the
courts
have long used the yardstick of informed consent when measuring compelling
societal reasons for removing or withholding civil rights. Children, the
mentally infirm, and others fall into such a catagory. If, however, you
do
feel strongly enough about wanting to marry a minor, you are, as everyone
is, fully within your rights to petition for changes in the laws regarding
age of consent. I personally would not support such an initiative based
on the issue of informed consent, and harm to the child. I have yet to
hear a solid, compelling, societal reason why two adults of sound mind
should be denied their basic rights of free association, contract formation,
and marriage. Do you have any?
James Doemer
> In article <38B422E6...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com>, "L. Michael Roberts"
> <News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But all aren't equal in law and never have been. Our law doesn't allow
> > > a
> >
> > Look up the concept of "informed consent" and get back to us....
>
>
> And what makes you think a minor can't give informed consent? A bias
> against minors? Are you minorphobic?
>
>
Because minors do not have the life experiences required to give such
consent.
But, as before, you are welcome to petition for change if you feel so
strongly about it.
James Doemer
> > including California, the equal protection clause guarantees that civil
> > issues, such as marriage licenses, issued by one state is valid in
another
> > state.
>
>
> > As such, if 22 is passed, it will be successfully challenged as
> > unconstitutional in the future.
>
> specifics. The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act", Clinton's masterpiece
> to woo the south last election, makes those specific terms of marriage
> acceptance individually definable in the states.
>
That is until the DOMA itself is found unconstitutional. It can be
challenged too.
John Higdon
> That is until the DOMA itself is found unconstitutional. It can be
> challenged too.
On what grounds? It would appear to conform to the "general laws" as
mentioned in Article IV, Section 1.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Diane Colson wrote the quoted material below:
>
>">>
>">>>It is AMAZING to consider that these folks are unable to wrap their
>">>>toxic little minds around so basic an item as:
>
>I don't know if you're aware of it (you don't seem to be aware of much),
>but you are needlessly quoting and requoting others and making a huge
>post, which few if any people are going to read. Consider trimming your
>quotes down to the essentials of what you're responding to.
As exemplar, you have trimmed your post down so that it a
misattribution and entirely without meaning.
ward
--------------------
Ward and George
43 years together
and yet,
strangers before the law.
---------------------------
Ward Stewart
<russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38b4ed19.865031@news-server>,
> wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:28:33 GMT, Russell McGregor
>> <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It seems odd that a church which pulled up stakes and moved into
>> >lawless
>> >> territory in order to practice their polygamy
>> >
>> >Actually the Church moved west to be left alone. That's all.
>> >
>> >> would then turn around
>> >> and totally ban it, considering that it was a church teaching and
>all.
>> >
>> >It happened. Get over it.
>>
>> You are at the very nub of the problem -- IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN as the
>> Mormons demonstrate with a hideous clarity their inability to learn
>> anything useful from a century of discrimination and mistreatment.
>
>The analogy, which those on your side of the argument seem to love to
>draw, is imperfect, and thus a fallacy.
>
>Nobody is trying to take away your right to vote, to hold public
>office, or to serve on a jury. Nobody is going to throw you in jail
>for living with George. Nobody will prosecute you for a new offence
>every day you stay with George. Nobody is trying to seize any property
>held collectively by any group with which you affiliate. Nobody will
>send an army to drive you out of your homes.
>
>All these things were done to us. To claim that this is somehow
>comparable to specifying in statute that your relationships are not
>marriages is absurd.
>
>> I shall not "get over it" until they get off of my case! As simple as
>> that.
>>
>> ward
>
>Well there you go, Ward. We don't see it as your case. We see it as
>the marriage case -- an exclusively heterosexual case -- and would like
>you, collectively, to get off it instead.
>
>Snip to end
>
>Russell C. McGregor
ASTONISHING!
Let's try this one -- "we see the front of the bus as an exclusively
white enclave and would like you to get off it instead."
"We see the country club as an exclusively WASP case and would like to
see you Jews and Blacks get off it instead.
ward
------------------------------------------------------
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
------------------------------------------------------
Russell McGregor
> >
> > In article <38b4ed19.865031@news-server>,
> > wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:28:33 GMT, Russell McGregor
> > > <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > You are at the very nub of the problem -- IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN as
the
> > > Mormons demonstrate with a hideous clarity their inability to
learn
> > > anything useful from a century of discrimination and mistreatment.
> >
> > The analogy, which those on your side of the argument seem to love
to
> > draw, is imperfect, and thus a fallacy.
> >
> > Nobody is trying to take away your right to vote, to hold public
> > office, or to serve on a jury. Nobody is going to throw you in jail
> > for living with George. Nobody will prosecute you for a new offence
> > every day you stay with George. Nobody is trying to seize any
property
> > held collectively by any group with which you affiliate. Nobody
will
> > send an army to drive you out of your homes.
>
early
> Mormons suffered has apparently not taught their descendants
> anything!
Oh, I think it has; for instance, a few years ago we went in to bat for
a fairly despised group -- the Moonies, I think it was. However, we
don't make the connection between the above persecution and the
protection of marriage as a formal man-woman relationship.
> After suffering such discrimination in the past, one
> would think the Mormons would be a little more sensitive to the
> plight of others rather than spending millions of dollars to deny
> people EQUAL standing before the law.
Yes, you (collectively) do keep repeating this slogan; however, I remain
unconvinced that you or any of you do not already have "EQUAL standing
before the law." Certainly the *relationships* you choose to enter into
are not EQUAL to marriages, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?
Snip to end
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ward Stewart
DeSalvio) wrote:
>In article <B4DA13CE.159BA%no-...@gotmoo.com>, John Higdon
>It is my belief that Clinton voted for DOMA, and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell
>Don't
>Pursue" issues, so that it would wind up in the Supreme Court, where a
>decision cannot be overturned by the whims of a different administration.
There is another aspect of these two unfortunate actions by the
president. At the beginning of his administration he was in hopes of
disentangling the ongoing disaster of the American health care system.
I would suspect that he thought (quite correctly) that the health care
cataclysm was a more important issue than Gay and Lesbian rights. He
forbore to expend too much of his momentum on what is a lesser issue.
That his efforts in this crucial area failed is due to the combined
threat of Doctors, HMOs, Insurance companies, for profit hospitals and
drug manufacturers finding common cause with Newt and the nasties.