Maine Gay Marriage Vote
Bobchai
Once again, as in California last year, the fundies have reversed the
civil rights of gay couples. This nonsense of back-and forth, now-
you're married/now you're not has got to stop. Thousands of those
legally married don't know their status, and thousands more couples
have been shut out of what is a basic, human civil right.
I used to believe that marriage and divorce laws (age of consent,
community property) were states' rights issues, and that sooner or
later, states would have some form of equality marriage laws.
Boy, was I naive!
But now enough is enough. We need Federal power to SLAM those states
who deny equality in marriage. Imagine, as late as 1967 there were
laws in 17 states which outlawed interracial marriage, preventing the
very opportunity for a future President to be born!
This is no longer a states rights issue, and TO HELL with the goddam
voters. Civil rights are our birthright, not something for teabaggers
to vote on. Under the endowment of our Creator, you don't "give" civil
rights which already existed as a birthright; you can only take them
away.
This commentary from Keith Olbermann from last November's Prop. 8
debacle in California needs to be repeated.
It is the finest piece of television journalism I have EVER seen in my
ENTIRE LIFE (and I'm old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow). Watch
it and weep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xfMisqab8
Good night, and good luck.
--Bob
Sharx35
"Bobchai" <Robert...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1bdad564-eff7-4093...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
99% of societies since man first walked on Earth have NOT condoned gay
marriage. It is NOT natural. In our present day climate of tolerance,
though, nothing stops 2 people of the same gender from simply living
together, though.
Pirate Queen
care how consenting adults choose to live their lives. It's just not
my business. In my perfect world, it wouldn't be the government's
business, either.
However, if civil unions would carry the same legal weight as current
marriages do, that would be a GOOD thing. Blind Lady Justice
shouldn't know, nor care, about an individual's sexual orientation.
As a side note: You'd think that lawyers would be salivating over the
financial potential that such contract law and legal counsel would
generate if even more people were engaged in marriage and divorce
proceedings, not to mention the Bridezilla Industry.
Hey Churchies: Gay marriage doesn't take away anything that you
already have. It just doesn't. Turn the other cheek and grow up.
Hey Gay People: Why should you give a damn if your relationship is
called a "marriage" or a "civil union"? Once you get equal protection
under the law - which you SHOULD have, IMO - it won't matter what it
is called, will it?
Damn, this nonsense is nothing more than playground bullshit played by
adults who should freaking know better...and because too many people
can't seem to get their shit together, someone out there always thinks
that somehow the solution is to get Big Brother involved.
T.
Kenny McCormack
Pirate Queen <crumsy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
(much good stuff - snipped)
>Damn, this nonsense is nothing more than playground bullshit played by
>adults who should freaking know better...and because too many people
>can't seem to get their shit together, someone out there always thinks
>that somehow the solution is to get Big Brother involved.
But here's the thing. Suppose you actually believe (or, more likley
strongly profess to believe for cultural reasons and/or fear of death [*])
that the Creator of the universe frowns on any sort of non-standard
(i.e., hetero, procreative) marriage. Further, suppose you believe that
bad things will happen (crops will fail, the stock market will recede,
locusts will come down in swarms, etc, etc) if He sees any instance of
this non-standard marriage.
Well, if you believe all of the above [**], then it's not just "playground
bullshit" anymore, is it?
[*] Very few people actually believe the religious malarkey (in the
sense that they believe that 2+2 = 4 or that the Sun works by nuclear
fusion). But many people strongly profess (i.e., pretend) to
believe it, for cultural reasons. And, as mentioned, all of religion
is based on playing on people's fear of death.
[**] garbage.
Pirate Queen
> But here's the thing. Suppose you actually believe (or, more likley
> strongly profess to believe for cultural reasons and/or fear of death [*])
> that the Creator of the universe frowns on any sort of non-standard
> (i.e., hetero, procreative) marriage. Further, suppose you believe that
> bad things will happen (crops will fail, the stock market will recede,
> locusts will come down in swarms, etc, etc) if He sees any instance of
> this non-standard marriage.
>
> Well, if you believe all of the above [**], then it's not just "playground
> bullshit" anymore, is it?
You do have a good point. Even though *I* personally think that it's
"playground bullshit," there ARE too many people who take their
Imaginary Friends With Imaginary Threats far too seriously and are
willing to bring in the force of the state to make people behave
according to "what's right".
"What's right" too often means "whatever the most wealthy and powerful
cultural group of the present time and circumstance" believe. *I*
believe that that is why 'democracy' is a suspect ideology - because
it is ultimately Mob Rule, but YMMV.
Yep, it looks like the Pirate Queen took her Anarchy Pill this
morning, you betcha...hey, at least the great state of Maine became
more forward-looking in regards to the use and distribution of certain
plant matter. So, there's that, right?
T.
Bobchai
> I don't care what consenting adults do with their bodies. I don't
> care how consenting adults choose to live their lives. It's just not
> my business. In my perfect world, it wouldn't be the government's
> business, either.
>
> However, if civil unions would carry the same legal weight as current
> marriages do, that would be a GOOD thing. Blind Lady Justice
> shouldn't know, nor care, about an individual's sexual orientation.
Pirate Queen:
I agree that the difference between civil unions with full legal
rights, and conventional marriage is probably an issue of semantics to
many people, but not to those who pledge lifetime committments to each
other. I say give them the benefit of the doubt; how is my marriage
threatened by those who choose to define themselves in this way?
Religion or not, there is something spiritual about the word
'marriage' as opposed to 'domestic partnership'. It connotes the
human spark of something well beyond a contractual relationship: it is
something deeper within our souls.
And the other component is acknowledgement and acceptance of this
relationship by the community. This is what irks many people who
claim tolerance but practice prejudice.
Rush Limbaugh is not a racist, he's just a "harmless little fuzzball".
Governor-elect McDonnell of Virginia: "I have nothing against womens
rights, I just don't want women in the workplace". Lou Dobbs and Tom
Tancredo aren't against immigrants, they just don't want them in our
country. That Justice of the Peace in Louisiana (who resigned
yesterday, BTW) says in effect, "I have nothing against black people,
I just don't want them marrying white people".
You can have a civil partnership, just don't call it marriage. Isn't
there some hypocrisy in that statement? If there truly is no
difference, why not call it marriage?
I confess I struggled with this issue for years, arguing for the other
side, until I finally realized that my arguments not only did not make
sense, but they were against the very concept of human freedom.
Freedom means to define oneself in one's own personal way, and the
right to be tolerated accordingly.
--Bob
Bobchai
> "Bobchai" <Robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote in message
Sharx:
It is not natural in the sense that marriage has historically been
about procreation, hereditary kingships (Henry VIII) and political
alliances between warring feudal lords (You MUST marry her! She has
these HUGE...tracts of land!" [Monty Python])
Now that we are in the post-procreation era (at least for childfrees),
I see no reason not to re-define marriage as a spiritual commitment
between two people who want what the rest of us already have, namely
the acknowledgement of their union before the law, before God (if they
have faith), and before the community.
As the video says, what could be wrong with that? Where is the harm
done to my marriage? Is the significance of my marriage in any way
diminished?
--Bob
Pirate Queen
> I agree that the difference between civil unions with full legal
> rights, and conventional marriage is probably an issue of semantics to
> many people, but not to those who pledge lifetime committments to each
> other.
That's THEIR problem. Furthermore, one can have no control over what
another thinks about anything.
> I say give them the benefit of the doubt; how is my marriage
> threatened by those who choose to define themselves in this way?
It's not. That's the point. Why continue the discussion...other than
for the topic of debate, right?
> Religion or not, there is something spiritual about the word
> 'marriage' as opposed to 'domestic partnership'. It connotes the
> human spark of something well beyond a contractual relationship: it is
> something deeper within our souls.
That's what YOU think. That's what others may think.
Then again, it's not what I think.
> And the other component is acknowledgement and acceptance of this
> relationship by the community. This is what irks many people who
> claim tolerance but practice prejudice.
Yeah, I know this. But after all of these years, I've come to the
conclusion of "So What?"
Water's wet. The sun is hot. The sky is blue.
Boys will be boys and girls will be girls.
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up work...except for Lola.
> Rush Limbaugh is not a racist, he's just a "harmless little fuzzball".
> Governor-elect McDonnell of Virginia: "I have nothing against womens
> rights, I just don't want women in the workplace". Lou Dobbs and Tom
> Tancredo aren't against immigrants, they just don't want them in our
> country. That Justice of the Peace in Louisiana (who resigned
> yesterday, BTW) says in effect, "I have nothing against black people,
> I just don't want them marrying white people".
Sticks and stones will break my bones....
Look, Bob - these jerkfaces are just revealing how jerkface they are.
I say let them proclaim their stupidity far and wide. The light
shines on cockroaches and they will scatter. Sure, there may be
millions of cockroaches still hidden somewhere, but as long as they
aren't living in your own kitchen, why should you care?
> You can have a civil partnership, just don't call it marriage. Isn't
> there some hypocrisy in that statement? If there truly is no
> difference, why not call it marriage?
Dude, you could call it "wharrgarbl" for all *I* care.
> I confess I struggled with this issue for years, arguing for the other
> side, until I finally realized that my arguments not only did not make
> sense, but they were against the very concept of human freedom.
The only way to win is not to play.
> Freedom means to define oneself in one's own personal way, and the
> right to be tolerated accordingly.
Okay. Fine. So explain to me how government intervention is a better
strategy than simply pointing out the idiocy, rising above the name-
calling nonsense, and moving on with your life?
If your argument is that we need the government to make people *behave
properly*, I don't think that there's anything more for me to say.
Give people who are married, civil-unioned, or wharrgarbled the same
rights under the law and be done with it - then throw a party and have
the Crumsy Pirates play for you.
Life's too short to be caught up in misery.
T.
Bobchai
> In article <791a1636-7d13-4831-a974-2c15d9bd1...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Kenny:
You have made some interesting points. However, it's not just religion
which guides this intolerance. It's as you say, a cultural challenge
to those unwilling to live and let live.
Religion played a big role in the defeat of gay marriage, which was
already legal, in these two states. The Mormon LDS church in Utah
poured in $millions to enact Prop. 8 in California, and the Catholic
church did the same in Maine, and each used the same advertising
agency for TV spots.
In fact, the ads were almost identical, using the same script ("If we
have gay marriage, then CHILDREN in our schools will be taught about
homosexuality").
Tip O'Neill once said that all politics is local. My corollary to
that is, "all politics is about THE CHILDREN". Clinton carpet-bombed
Belgrade "for our children". Opponents of deficit spending always
say, "Our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill". Well, my
grandchildren won't, because I'll never have any. Anyway, they can
always do a re-fi.
We have to get away from this idea that marriage is about
procreation. Otherwise, childfree marriages have no significance.
--Bob
Bobchai
Pirate Queen:
I completely understand your opinion that in the grand scheme of
things, this is insignificant. But if some people demand to be
married, LET 'em.
The idea that government recognition of these marriages is an
intrusion of Big Brother is just the opposite. It's *liberating* for
those who consider this important to their lives, and it's really
nobody else's business. This is as far as I go on this issue. I'm
not going to sign any petitions or participate in any protests.
Like you, I don't sweat the small stuff. But this a civil rights
issue to a number of people, and if this is a big deal to them, let
them have their way.
Is your band ever going to play in California sometime?
--Bob
Frank Apple
> But now enough is enough. We need Federal power to SLAM those states
> who deny equality in marriage.
I share your disappointment in Tuesday's results, but under what
authority would the federal government be able to impose gay
marriage on the states?
--
Frank Apple
Sharx35
Time to move on to health care and/or illegal immigration.
Bobchai
Frank:
In the same way it abolished state laws which prevented interracial
marriage.
Bobchai
Sharx:
NOW you're talkin' ! Swords or pistols?
--Bob
Frank Apple
> On Nov 5, 5:07?pm, Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > I share your disappointment in Tuesday's results, but under what
> > authority would the federal government be able to impose gay
> > marriage on the states?
> In the same way it abolished state laws which prevented interracial
> marriage.
But there's Constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
--
Frank Apple
Pirate Queen
> And Pirate Queen probably voted for that old white Jewish woman for
> mayor too!?!;-)
>
> Blue Atlanta just got bluer!
>
> <chesucat smirks>
The Pirate Queen chose not to vote on Tuesday and will not vote in the
Mayoral run-off either. None of the particular candidates were that
impressive or horrible to make a difference this time around.
Nor is it her problem that you have an irrational fear of particular
colors, you silly kitty.
Do you ever even bother to come inside the perimeter or are you a
scaredy-cat?
T. - OMIGAWD! There's non-white and gay people downtown! Run for the
Hills!
Sharx35
That is TOTAL false apple and oranges logic. There is a WORLD of difference
between prohibiting marriage based on racial difference compared to the
false strawman of same gender marriage.
Frank Apple
> Life's too short to be caught up in misery.
I'm adopting that for a sigquote, unless you have any objection.
--
Frank Apple
"Life's too short to be caught up in misery." -Pirate Queen
Pirate Queen
The Crumsy Pirates have day jobs; we are scratching up some cash to
record our 3rd studio album in January.
Will we ever play California? Perhaps, someday.
We're staying local to Georgia/Alabama/Florida/NC for the time being,
though.
T. - Waiting for Captain Morgan's, maker of fine rums, to return my
calls......HA!
Pirate Queen
Four Thirty
> I share your disappointment in Tuesday's results, but under what
> authority would the federal government be able to impose gay
> marriage on the states?
Any kind of same-sex marriage rights are meaningless unless they are
at the FEDERAL level. Even in states such as Massachusetts and iowa,
which recognize same-sex marraige, those marriages do not exist for
any FEDERAL rights, meaning one spouse cannot inherit the other's
Social Security, file joint US taxes, etc. (meanwhile, Britney Spears
got those and 1000 other rights for her "publicity stunt" in Vegas
whenever that was).
The reason it can't simply be "domestic partnerships" is that FEDERAL
law still says only married spouses can inherit Social Security, file
joint taxes, inherit property tax-free in many situations where any
other beneficiary other than a SPOUSE must pay taxes.
It's a lot faster to just call it all "marriage" than to have to
change over 1000 references to "marriage" to "marriage or domestic
partnership" at the Federal level.
4:30
Sharx35
"Four Thirty" <dances...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bfe76b9-7817-45b2...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
CALLING it that does NOT make it so.
Frank Apple
> On Nov 5, 8:07?pm, Frank Apple
> > I share your disappointment in Tuesday's results, but under what
> > authority would the federal government be able to impose gay
> > marriage on the states?
> Any kind of same-sex marriage rights are meaningless unless they are
> at the FEDERAL level.
Right; at the very least the DoMA would have to be repealed.
Better, the feds would start recognizing same-sex marriages
entered into in DC and those states where it's legal.
Bob seems to be saying that the feds should impose same-sex
marriage on those states which do not wish to legalize it,
though, and I'm asking him what the Constitutional basis for
that is.
--
Frank Apple
========================================================================
Kenny McCormack
Frank Apple <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>Four Thirty <dances...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 8:07?pm, Frank Apple
>
>> > I share your disappointment in Tuesday's results, but under what
>> > authority would the federal government be able to impose gay
>> > marriage on the states?
>
>> Any kind of same-sex marriage rights are meaningless unless they are
>> at the FEDERAL level.
>
>Right; at the very least the DoMA would have to be repealed.
>Better, the feds would start recognizing same-sex marriages
>entered into in DC and those states where it's legal.
>
>Bob seems to be saying that the feds should impose same-sex
>marriage on those states which do not wish to legalize it,
>though, and I'm asking him what the Constitutional basis for
>that is.
All they have to do is pass legislation that witholds federal highway
money from states that refuse to do X, for any X, and that's how the
federal gov can do anything it pleases.
Yes. I am annoyed at how they pushed through a nationwide 21-year-old
minimum drinking age. But if it works there (and it did), then it can
work anywhere.
Bobchai
Frank:
If I knew for certain, this would not even be an issue now. Try
these:
Article Four:
"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 by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
* * *
This says that other states must honor gay marriage if the marriage
was contracted in a state where it was legal for same-sex marriage.
So if I'm a gay marriage partner in state X, the state we move to must
honor our union, even if illegal in that state. DoMA is
unconstitutional.
Amendment Fourteen (Equal Protection):
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
* * *
States do not have a right to pick and choose the people to whom it
will grant rights and priviledges. DoMA is unconstitutional.
***
Most of the other citations are in state supreme court judgements,
which in recent years have favored same-sex marriage.
I know that's a weak answer, but that's the state of affairs today.
--Bob
Pirate Queen
> All the candidates were liberal democrats, so there is not much of a
> choice, 'eh?
True dat.
> Crimes will still be in ATL. unless the new mayor can
> raises taxes and cut corruption.
I'm not holding my breath, but guess what? ALL major cities have
crime.
> No! I will not go into the perimeter of ATL. if I can help it. I
> remember when I work temp downtown a few years ago. Standing on
> Forsyth St. near Five Points MARTA waiting for the OTP Park-n-Ride
> bus in a sea of black people, I felt like I was in Soweto.
I don't think you should go where you aren't comfortable. Especially
if you are so afraid that you will somehow be tainted or victimized by
that 'sea of black people.' Clearly, you are happier when you can
stay with people who are more like you. If it keeps you healthier and
happier to barricade yourself behind a gate in White Walmart Land,
then I think that you have made the right choice for yourself.
BTW, I ride MARTA everyday; Five Points is my stop. I've bought
refreshments from the street vendors, danced with some buskers, and
even talked with some preachers. Sure, there are some shady characters
lurking around, but there's really nothing to fear during the day,
unless you can't stand the fact that you might have to come face to
face with a person who makes you uncomfortable because s/hes of a
different color/race.
> Come to Kennesaw and play, if you dare. Actually, Cobb County is
> colorising at a steady pace.
If I "dare"? Are you kidding me? I've posted before about parties
I've played in Kennesaw and Cobb County. I've also mentioned
relatives who live there. Unlike you, I don't have an innate or
irrational fear of people who are different from me.
Tell me, kitty - if you are so afraid of the colorization of Cobb
County, why don't you find another place outside of the metro-Atlanta
area to live? Sorry to say for you, but there's black folk
everywhere; if you went down to parts of south Georgia or Alabama,
however, you might find a color-ratio more to your liking.
T.
Frank Apple
> On Nov 8, 3:23?am, Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > Bob seems to be saying that the feds should impose same-sex
> > marriage on those states which do not wish to legalize it,
> > though, and I'm asking him what the Constitutional basis for
> > that is.
> If I knew for certain, this would not even be an issue now. Try
> these:
> Article Four:
> "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 by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
> Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
> Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
> Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> * * *
Right, and the DoMA specifies that same-sex marriage doesn't
count. Until it's repealed, or overturned by The Supremes, no
state has to recognize any other state's same-sex marriages.
> This says that other states must honor gay marriage if the marriage
> was contracted in a state where it was legal for same-sex marriage.
> So if I'm a gay marriage partner in state X, the state we move to must
> honor our union, even if illegal in that state. DoMA is
> unconstitutional.
I think there's a good argument that it is, but so far there's
been no successful challenge.
There are certainly legitimate reasons to impose limits on the
FF&C clause. Suppose, for a moment, Mississippi legalized
marraiges involving persons as young as two years old.... Now,
obviously, that's absurd, but it illustrates the need for some
sort of limitation, if not the places where those limits will
be drawn.
> Amendment Fourteen (Equal Protection):
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
> and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
> any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
> of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> * * *
> States do not have a right to pick and choose the people to whom it
> will grant rights and priviledges. DoMA is unconstitutional.
The typical response to this is that homosexuals are just as free
to marry persons of the opposite sex as are heterosexuals. And,
sorry, but it works - I don't like it, and you don't like it, but
it's consistent.
Me, I'd be happiest to see all levels of government get out of
the marriage business altogether. You want to get married in a
church, synagogue, yurt, or flower-strewn field? Fine, that's
none of government's business. You want to enjoy the legal
protections and other apparatus inherent to marriage as it's
practiced today? Fine, enter into a binding contract with all
the lawyers and forms and government stamps such would require,
only we'll call it something else - for everyone, gay, straight,
or otherwise.
Frank Apple
> In article <hd69o1$e2p$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Frank Apple <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >Bob seems to be saying that the feds should impose same-sex
> >marriage on those states which do not wish to legalize it,
> >though, and I'm asking him what the Constitutional basis for
> >that is.
> All they have to do is pass legislation that witholds federal highway
> money from states that refuse to do X, for any X, and that's how the
> federal gov can do anything it pleases.
Yes, there IS that crap. But until the feds care as much about
letting Adam and Steve marry as they do about highway safety,
it's not going to happen.
Pete
<e1da7da0-58d9-4325...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Pirate Queen <crumsy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tell me, kitty - if you are so afraid of the colorization of Cobb
> County, why don't you find another place outside of the metro-Atlanta
> area to live? Sorry to say for you, but there's black folk
> everywhere; if you went down to parts of south Georgia or Alabama,
> however, you might find a color-ratio more to your liking.
I'm thinking Tiger Ridge...Pete
Pirate Queen
> In article
> <e1da7da0-58d9-4325-a868-e17036e68...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Pirate Queen <crumsypira...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tell me, kitty - if you are so afraid of the colorization of Cobb
> > County, why don't you find another place outside of the metro-Atlanta
> > area to live? Sorry to say for you, but there's black folk
> > everywhere; if you went down to parts of south Georgia or Alabama,
> > however, you might find a color-ratio more to your liking.
>
> I'm thinking Tiger Ridge...Pete
HA! I just googled...yeah, that may very well be the perfect place
for chesucat, providing the bloodline's properly proven and the family
tree doesn't fork.
But hey, they've got pretty Christmas lights down yonder, so I've just
read.
T. - Pro-twinkling lights!
Sharx35
"Frank Apple" <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:hd95v3$ogo$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <hd69o1$e2p$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Frank Apple <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> >Bob seems to be saying that the feds should impose same-sex
>> >marriage on those states which do not wish to legalize it,
>> >though, and I'm asking him what the Constitutional basis for
>> >that is.
>
>> All they have to do is pass legislation that witholds federal highway
>> money from states that refuse to do X, for any X, and that's how the
>> federal gov can do anything it pleases.
>
> Yes, there IS that crap. But until the feds care as much about
> letting Adam and Steve marry as they do about highway safety,
> it's not going to happen.
Highway safety IS important--a life and death matter. Gay so-called
"marriage" is trivial.
Frank Apple
> "Frank Apple" <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:hd95v3$ogo$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> > Yes, there IS that crap. But until the feds care as much about
> > letting Adam and Steve marry as they do about highway safety,
> > it's not going to happen.
> Highway safety IS important--a life and death matter. Gay so-called
> "marriage" is trivial.
Whatever the truth or falsehood of either of those two
statements, neither is any business at all of the federal
government.
It's in the Bill of Rights; you could look it up even.
Bobchai
> "Frank Apple" <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hd95v3$ogo$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kenny McCormack <gaze...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> >> In article <hd69o1$e2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >> Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Bob seems to be saying that the feds should impose same-sex
> >> >marriage on those states which do not wish to legalize it,
> >> >though, and I'm asking him what the Constitutional basis for
> >> >that is.
>
> >> All they have to do is pass legislation that witholds federal highway
> >> money from states that refuse to do X, for any X, and that's how the
> >> federal gov can do anything it pleases.
>
> > Yes, there IS that crap. But until the feds care as much about
> > letting Adam and Steve marry as they do about highway safety,
> > it's not going to happen.
>
> Highway safety IS important--a life and death matter. Gay so-called
> "marriage" is trivial.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Frank Apple
> > ========================================================================
> > "Life's too short to be caught up in misery." -Pirate Queen
Trivial to whom?
--Bob
Bobchai
> Sharx35 <shar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Bill of Rights says nothing about marriage. It is not in the Bill
of Rights.
There is a Constitutional clause which says that any federal powers
not enumerated therein shall be relegated to the states. But that is
null and void in questions of civil equality.
--Bob
Frank Apple
> On Nov 10, 5:38?am, Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > Sharx35 <shar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Highway safety IS important--a life and death matter. ?Gay so-called
> > > "marriage" is trivial.
> >
> > Whatever the truth or falsehood of either of those two
> > statements, neither is any business at all of the federal
> > government.
> >
> > It's in the Bill of Rights; you could look it up even.
> The Bill of Rights says nothing about marriage. It is not in the Bill
> of Rights.
That's exactly what I said. See the Tenth Amendment.
> There is a Constitutional clause which says that any federal powers
> not enumerated therein shall be relegated to the states.
That's not a "constitutional clause," it's the Tenth Article of
the Bill of Rights.
> But that is
> null and void in questions of civil equality.
What?
Cite, please. Pay particular attention to the concept of "civil
equality" and what that means. Hint: it has everything to do with
race, something to do with gender, and nothing at all to do with
sexual preference.
The fact that something is right and proper, and a good idea, does
not automagically mean that it is Constitutionally mandated.