Re: California's top court overturns gay marriage ban
Tom Sr.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement,
the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay
marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the
nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage,
the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron
George.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as
news spread of the decision.
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a
loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and
responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the
individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay
rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San
Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that
everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the
country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney
Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
-----
David Hartung
> -
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
>
> California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
> by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer
>
> SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement,
> the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay
> marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the
> nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
If same sex marriage is now a right in California, then so should be
polygamy.
Tom Sr.
> If same sex marriage is now a right in California, then so should be
> polygamy.
Are people born polygamists?
-Tom Sr.
Tom Sr.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7vLK0.YYMho&refer=home
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued the following
statement this morning, in response to the Court's decision:
"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its
ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an
amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme
Court ruling
-----
David Hartung
Which is an excellent reason for the people of California to toss the
governor out on his ear.
Tom Sr.
> Tom Sr. wrote:
> > Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued the following
> > statement this morning, in response to the Court's decision:
> > "I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its
> > ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an
> > amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme
> > Court ruling
> Which is an excellent reason for the people of California to toss the
> governor out on his ear.
That won't happen.
You live in a world of ultraconservative delusions, Mr. Hartung.
You need to take an Extra Strength Get-The-Fuck-Over-It pill.
-Tom Sr.
robw
My wife and I are friends with many gay couples.
Most of them have a better relationship than our straight couple friends.
One couple had a person who took a job because his benefits could be
extended to his partner. One of them was in a car accident and landed in
ICU.
You had a man whose benefits were paying the bills.
But he couldn't see his partner because it was family only.
Tell us how that works???
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GpKdnd8BVclTdbHV...@comcast.com...
David Moffitt
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:58GdnY8318lHb7HV...@comcast.com...
| Why?
|
| My wife and I are friends with many gay couples.
| Most of them have a better relationship than our straight couple friends.
|
| One couple had a person who took a job because his benefits could be
| extended to his partner. One of them was in a car accident and landed in
| ICU.
|
|
| You had a man whose benefits were paying the bills.
| But he couldn't see his partner because it was family only.
|
| Tell us how that works???
%%%% Very simple he give his "boyfriend" POA. No law or hospital regulation
can keep him away.
“Actually, what I have is more properly termed "Closet Gaydar” ---- Kyle
Daulton 11/17/2005
robw
He was not allowed into the ICU because he was not "family."
That's fact.
"David Moffitt" <dmof...@weaselstomping.org> wrote in message
news:1MCdnbPqhLcwarHV...@earthlink.com...
David Hartung
> No.
>
> He was not allowed into the ICU because he was not "family."
>
> That's fact.
Suppose the patient had had 5 wives, should they be allowed in?
robw
Your answer?
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4dGdncEwxZSCZ7HV...@comcast.com...
David Hartung
So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
relationship?
Tom Sr.
> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
> relationship?
You're comparison of same-sex marriage to polygamy is false one. The
judges ruling was on the right of one person to marry one other
person.
By your twisted "logic", the right of people of different races to
marry one another, something which also was *against* the law, would
mean that polygamous marriage should be legal.
Yet you keep making it, because you have no valid reason to argue
against same-sex marriage.
You truly do not understand what a stupid and foolish *claim* you are
making.
Just so you know, the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of
this marriage also states any ballot attempting to overturn it would
also likely be found unconstitutional.
You've lost. With time, you will *always* loose.
-Tom Sr.
David Hartung
> On May 16, 6:58 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
>> relationship?
>
> You're comparison of same-sex marriage to polygamy is false one. The
> judges ruling was on the right of one person to marry one other
> person.
>
> By your twisted "logic", the right of people of different races to
> marry one another, something which also was *against* the law, would
> mean that polygamous marriage should be legal.
>
> Yet you keep making it, because you have no valid reason to argue
> against same-sex marriage.
>
> You truly do not understand what a stupid and foolish *claim* you are
> making.
Please explain how it is appropriate for two people of the same sex to
marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry several people
of the opposite sex.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
Laws against same-sex marriage are sex discrimination. If the only reason
person A cannot marry person B is A's sex, that is sex discrimination.
Laws against bigamy are not discrimination based on sex because neither a
man nor a woman can be married to more than one person at a time.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 249 days to go.
Tim Crowley
>
> Please explain how it is appropriate for two people of the same sex to
> marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry several people
> of the opposite sex.
Poor widdle hartung. Doesn't understand the basics of the
discussion. sad.
David Hartung
> In our last episode, <7eOdnWAWnZOv8LDV...@comcast.com>, the
> lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> On May 16, 6:58 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
>>>> relationship?
>>> You're comparison of same-sex marriage to polygamy is false one. The
>>> judges ruling was on the right of one person to marry one other
>>> person.
>>>
>>> By your twisted "logic", the right of people of different races to
>>> marry one another, something which also was *against* the law, would
>>> mean that polygamous marriage should be legal.
>>>
>>> Yet you keep making it, because you have no valid reason to argue
>>> against same-sex marriage.
>>>
>>> You truly do not understand what a stupid and foolish *claim* you are
>>> making.
>
>> Please explain how it is appropriate for two people of the same sex to
>> marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry several people
>> of the opposite sex.
>
> Laws against same-sex marriage are sex discrimination. If the only reason
> person A cannot marry person B is A's sex, that is sex discrimination.
I see.
> Laws against bigamy are not discrimination based on sex because neither a
> man nor a woman can be married to more than one person at a time.
So, the only reason that polygamy is wrong is because the law says that
it is. Using your definition of discrimination, it seems that if laws
against same sex marriage are unconstitutional discrimination, then the
same is true for laws against polygamy.
David Hartung
Then please enlighten me.
Just how is it that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional
discrimination, and laws against polygamy aren't?
David Moffitt
| No.
|
| He was not allowed into the ICU because he was not "family."
|
| That's fact.
%%%% If he had a POA he could not be denied access. It's the law.
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
HarryNadds
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just curious, but how about farmer John that REALLY likes his cute
little bovine heifer. Would he be allowed to marry said bovine in
California?? If not, why not??
David Hartung
Ask the same sex marriage folks. I am merely trying to make the point
that since same sex marriage is now legal in California, we can expect
polygamists to move to California and make the claim that they also have
a right to their definition of marriage.
Wayne
It is because polygamy isn't a politically correct issue, and homosexuals
are. I personally don't care how someone else gets their jollies, but
changing the meaning of word (marriage) to include homosexuals is a bunch of
crap. Anyone should be entitled to a legal civil union whether they are
homosexuals or not, including heterosexual couples. But, the latest CA SC
ruling is just a statement by the court saying "welcome to California".
Lamont Cranston
Yeah, heaven forbid that we have a Governor who obeys the law.
Lamont Cranston
Strawman.
Lamont Cranston
You think so? ROTFLMAO!!!
The Real Roman?
>
> - Show quoted text -
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What you have hear is the few dictating to the many and ignoring the
will of the people as well as the constitution. We are a very troubled
nation.
Lamont Cranston
Homosexual people do not contend that people should be able to have whatever
marital arrangement they want. They contend only that everyone should have
access to marriage as heterosexual people do. They do not argue for any
additional legal rights other people do not have. Instead, they argue that
they are uniquely denied a right everyone else already has — the right to
marry someone they love.
In this context, polygamy is nothing more than a strawman. The same goes
for incest and Bill O'Reilly's favorite topic, marrying an animal.
mordacp...@hotmail.com
> On May 16, 4:17 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Sr. wrote:
> > > On May 16, 6:58 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
> > >> relationship?
>
> > > You're comparison of same-sex marriage to polygamy is false one. The
> > > judges ruling was on the right of one person to marry one other
> > > person.
>
> > > By your twisted "logic", the right of people of different races to
> > > marry one another, something which also was *against* the law, would
> > > mean that polygamous marriage should be legal.
>
> > > Yet you keep making it, because you have no valid reason to argue
> > > against same-sex marriage.
>
> > > You truly do not understand what a stupid and foolish *claim* you are
> > > making.
>
> > Please explain how it is appropriate for two people of the same sex to
> > marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry several people
> > of the opposite sex.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What you have hear is the few dictating to the many and ignoring the
> will of the people as well as the constitution. We are a very troubled
> nation
Bullshit.
What you have "hear" is the court telling California that they can't
pass laws that are unconstitutional.
If you want to live in a country where the mob rules, go back in time
to Nazi Germany.
wby...@ireland.com
Fine - they're both okay. Happy now? I hope that both you and
Bo-Peep's flock will be happy as that's about as close as you'll ever
get to a meaningful relationship - and it's polygamous to boot.
WB Yeats
zzbu...@netscape.net
> -http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
>
> California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
> by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer
>
> SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement,
> the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay
> marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the
> nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
>
> Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage,
> the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron
> George.
But, idiots in US Courts have always had bizzare rulings about
marriage,
Since they even let Ted Bundy get married during his second serial
murder trial.
Which is most probably why people invented ICBM laws for the
wanks,
rather than than just ax laws.
>
> Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as
> news spread of the decision.
>
> "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a
> loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and
> responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the
> individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.
>
> The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay
> rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San
> Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.
>
> "Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that
> everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the
> country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney
> Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
> -----
Lamont Cranston
> "David Hartung" <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:P9udnfvyvpFiH7DV...@comcast.com...
>> Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On May 16, 4:17 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Please explain how it is appropriate for two people of the same
>>>> sex to marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry
>>>> several people of the opposite sex.
>>>
>>> Poor widdle hartung. Doesn't understand the basics of the
>>> discussion. sad.
>>
>> Then please enlighten me.
>>
>> Just how is it that laws against same sex marriage are
>> unconstitutional discrimination, and laws against polygamy aren't?
>
> It is because polygamy isn't a politically correct issue, and
> homosexuals are.
Nope.
Lamont Cranston
What you hear is tyranny of the majority taking a solid kick in its ass.
The Constitution was upheld, moron, not ignored.
Lamont Cranston
> On May 15, 7:36 pm, "Tom Sr." <tomswif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
> >
> > California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
> > by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer
> >
> > SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement,
> > the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay
> > marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in
> > the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
> >
> > Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage,
> > the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron
> > George.
>
> But, idiots in US Courts have always had bizzare rulings about
> marriage,
> Since they even let Ted Bundy get married during his second serial
> murder trial.
Is there a law that you can't get married if you are on trial for murder?
> Which is most probably why people invented ICBM laws for the
> wanks,
> rather than than just ax laws.
???
Wayne
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@penumbra.com> wrote in message
news:g0kgbc$bit$1...@news.datemas.de...
David Hartung
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:24:03 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Just curious, but how about farmer John that REALLY likes his cute
>>> little bovine heifer. Would he be allowed to marry said bovine in
>>> California?? If not, why not??
>> Ask the same sex marriage folks. I am merely trying to make the point
>> that since same sex marriage is now legal in California, we can expect
>> polygamists to move to California and make the claim that they also have
>> a right to their definition of marriage.
>
>
> Only you could concoct a silly bunch of crap like that
> HARTUNG.
>
> You've never "Made a point" in all your ignorant
> postings.
>
> It is discriminatory to preclude TWO (2) citizens the
> SAME legal rights as any given TWO (2) citizens
> entering into a contract
>
> We dont' extend contract rights to minors---it is
> self-evident that age/youth do not totally fathom
> (generally) the consequences of their acts.
>
> We don't extend contract rights to enfeebled, insane,
> or otherwise encapacitated people for the same reason
>
> We DISCRIMINATE if we inject a RELIGIOUS component in
> refusing TWO (2) citizens the right to enter into a
> civil contract simply based on Gender.
So what would be your rational for prohibiting polygamy?
David Hartung
> Multiple partners is not a civil right
>
> ONE partner is.
Please explain.
David Hartung
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:50:13 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Just how is it that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional
>> discrimination, and laws against polygamy aren't?
>
> legal contracts?
>
> It is a social norm that one partner wed another---it
> is a civil contract. By law, that contract is between
> two (2) people. Enacted law (and social norm)
> established that only TWO (2) be given that right.
It is also a societal norm that in a marriage, partners be of opposite sex.
>
> It is a RELIGIOUS "norm" that they be opposite sex
I see.
> It is not a civil right to enter into contracts (by
> law) with multiple partners.
So, if four people get together and form a business, they have no right
to enter into contract with one another?
David Hartung
> David Hartung wrote:
>> Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On May 16, 4:17 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Please explain how it is appropriate for two people of the same sex
>>>> to marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry several
>>>> people of the opposite sex.
>>>
>>> Poor widdle hartung. Doesn't understand the basics of the
>>> discussion. sad.
>>
>> Then please enlighten me.
>>
>> Just how is it that laws against same sex marriage are
>> unconstitutional discrimination, and laws against polygamy aren't?
>
> Homosexual people do not contend that people should be able to have
> whatever marital arrangement they want. They contend only that everyone
> should have access to marriage as heterosexual people do. They do not
> argue for any additional legal rights other people do not have.
> Instead, they argue that they are uniquely denied a right everyone else
> already has — the right to marry someone they love.
Using that logic, if I fall in love with three different women, I should
have the right to marry them.
> In this context, polygamy is nothing more than a strawman. The same
> goes for incest and Bill O'Reilly's favorite topic, marrying an animal.
No, it illustrates that the same sex marriage people do not allow others
to use the same arguments that they use.
David Hartung
My guess would be that the California was mangled.
David Hartung
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:40:44 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:50:13 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just how is it that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional
>>>> discrimination, and laws against polygamy aren't?
>>> Are you saying that you can't intellectually grasp
>>> legal contracts?
>>>
>>> It is a social norm that one partner wed another---it
>>> is a civil contract. By law, that contract is between
>>> two (2) people. Enacted law (and social norm)
>>> established that only TWO (2) be given that right.
>> It is also a societal norm that in a marriage, partners be of opposite sex.
>
It is not yet a societal norm that men can marry men, or that women can
marry women. That is why it is taking court decisions to force the issue.
Which means that polygamy is as valid as same sex marriage.
> Weren't you ever taught that
>
> Men Wearing hats was passe starting in the mid-50's
>
>>> It is a RELIGIOUS "norm" that they be opposite sex
>> I see.
>>
>>> It is not a civil right to enter into contracts (by
>>> law) with multiple partners.
>> So, if four people get together and form a business, they have no right
>> to enter into contract with one another?
>
> Not a marriage contract
I have been married for almost 28 years, I have never considered my
marriage license to be a contract. When did this definition come into being?
David Hartung
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:43:54 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> What you hear is tyranny of the majority taking a solid kick in its ass.
>>> The Constitution was upheld, moron, not ignored.
>> My guess would be that the California was mangled.
>
> "mangling" in your view?
All citizens have had equal status.
David Hartung
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:42:42 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Using that logic, if I fall in love with three different women, I should
>> have the right to marry them.
>
>
> Contract law is legislated law. The legislature can
> enact laws that limit that number.
When did a marriage license become a contract?
> Legislatures cannot pass laws that take away rights
> under the federal constitution
In this case, what rights are you talking about.
> It is not a God-given "right" to marry more than one
> person.
I never said that it was.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:42:42 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Using that logic, if I fall in love with three different women, I should
>>> have the right to marry them.
>>
>> You have the right to marry ONE of them
>>
>> Contract law is legislated law. The legislature can
>> enact laws that limit that number.
> When did a marriage license become a contract?
The license, of course, is not a contract. The marriage is. That, after
all, is the origin of marriage, and was for thousands of years before
religion decided to stick its nose into it in about the ninth century CE.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 248 days to go.
Wayne
prevents the gummint from coming and taking all the "stuff" when someone
dies.
David Hartung
> In our last episode, <It6dnX4H3tJnbLDV...@comcast.com>, the
> lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:42:42 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using that logic, if I fall in love with three different women, I should
>>>> have the right to marry them.
>>> You have the right to marry ONE of them
>>>
>>> Contract law is legislated law. The legislature can
>>> enact laws that limit that number.
>
>> When did a marriage license become a contract?
>
> The license, of course, is not a contract. The marriage is. That, after
> all, is the origin of marriage, and was for thousands of years before
> religion decided to stick its nose into it in about the ninth century CE.
I see, and where is this contract recorded?
Lars Eighner
Provisions may vary by state, but the county clerks office would be the
usual place.
Tom Sr.
> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
> relationship?
"California's chief justice emphasized Thursday that the court's
action does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-
sex marriage ceremonies. He added that the decision did 'not affect
the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against
polygamy and the marriage of close relatives'."
---
-Tom Sr.
Tom Sr.
> Please explain how it is appropriate for two people of the same sex to
> marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry several people
> of the opposite sex.
"California's chief justice emphasized Thursday that the court's
action does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-
sex marriage ceremonies. He added that the decision did 'not affect
the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against
polygamy and the marriage of close relatives'."
-----
-Tom Sr.
Tom Sr.
> Then please enlighten me.
> Just how is it that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional
> discrimination, and laws against polygamy aren't?
Why not email the Chief Justice of California's Supreme Court and ask
him?
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20080516/ZNYT02/805160310/1002/NEWS04
"California's chief justice emphasized Thursday that the court's
action does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-
sex marriage ceremonies. He added that the decision did 'not affect
the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against
polygamy and the marriage of close relatives'."
----------
-Tom Sr,
Tom Sr.
wrote:______________________________________________
> What you have hear is the few dictating to the many and ignoring the
> will of the people as well as the constitution. We are a very troubled
> nation.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a
goddamned piece of paper!"
-- George H.W.. Bush
Tom Sr.
wrote:
> On May 15, 7:36 pm, "Tom Sr." <tomswif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
> > by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer
> > SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement,
> > the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay
> > marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the
> > nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
> But, idiots in US Courts have always had bizzare rulings
YEAH! Like when they allowed black guys to marry white girls!
-Tom Sr.
The Real Roman?
> On May 16, 8:28 am, "The Real Roman?" <PaxRomana...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 4:17 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Tom Sr. wrote:
> > > > On May 16, 6:58 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
> > > >> relationship?
>
> > > > judges ruling was on the right of one person to marry one other
> > > > person.
>
> > > > By your twisted "logic", the right of people of different races to
> > > > marry one another, something which also was *against* the law, would
> > > > mean that polygamous marriage should be legal.
>
> > > > Yet you keep making it, because you have no valid reason to argue
> > > > against same-sex marriage.
>
> > > > You truly do not understand what a stupid and foolish *claim* you are
> > > > making.
>
> > > marry, but it isn't appropriate for one person to marry several people
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What you have hear is the few dictating to the many and ignoring the
> > will of the people as well as the constitution. We are a very troubled
> > nation
>
>
> What you have "hear" is the court telling California that they can't
> pass laws that are unconstitutional.
>
> If you want to live in a country where the mob rules, go back in time
> to Nazi Germany.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Playing the Nazi card in any semblance of an intelligent discourse is
childish and moronic. The constitution does not support Gay Marriage
anymore than it support a father marrying his daughter.
David Hartung
> In our last episode, <WqidnarE46rrnLPV...@comcast.com>, the
> lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>> In our last episode, <It6dnX4H3tJnbLDV...@comcast.com>, the
>>> lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
>>>
>>>> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:42:42 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Using that logic, if I fall in love with three different women, I should
>>>>>> have the right to marry them.
>>>>> You have the right to marry ONE of them
>>>>>
>>>>> Contract law is legislated law. The legislature can
>>>>> enact laws that limit that number.
>>>> When did a marriage license become a contract?
>>> The license, of course, is not a contract. The marriage is. That, after
>>> all, is the origin of marriage, and was for thousands of years before
>>> religion decided to stick its nose into it in about the ninth century CE.
>
>> I see, and where is this contract recorded?
>
> Provisions may vary by state, but the county clerks office would be the
> usual place.
I have signed a number of contracts in my day. Every last one of them
has the terms of the contract as part of the contract body. My marriage
license has no terms specified. Where might i find the terms of this
marriage "contract"?
David Hartung
Simple logic seems to dictate that if prohibitions against same sex
marriage are unconstitutional, than so are prohibitions against polygamy.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
> Tom Sr. wrote:
There is nothing logical about that conclusion. The prohibition on same sex
marriage is sex-based discrimination. The prohibition on polygamy is not.
David Moffitt
%%%% What God has put together ........
"Get fucked! Get the fuck out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!" (From
Hillary's Scheme, p. 89 -- Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service
detail agents)
David Moffitt
%%%% Or pedophilia and necrophelia because they are also "orientations"!
David Moffitt
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrng2sfle...@debranded.larseighner.com...
%%%% How is not recognizing an orientation discrimination?
"Fuck off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm
not going to talk to you too!! Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth
shut." (From American Evita by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 -- Hillary to her
State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning.")
David Hartung
The upon what is the prohibition against polygamy based?
robw
f*ck???
"David Moffitt" <dmof...@weaselstomping.org> wrote in message
news:b-6dnX8aKfK237PV...@earthlink.com...
David Hartung
> -
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
>
> California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
> by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer
>
> SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement,
> the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay
> marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the
> nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
>
> the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron
> George.
>
> Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as
> news spread of the decision.
>
> "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a
> loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and
> responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the
> individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.
>
> The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay
> rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San
> Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.
>
> "Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that
> everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the
> country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney
> Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
> -----
It seems that the fight is not yet over:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64531
The voter initiative is for an amendment to the California Constitution
which would prohibit same sex marriage.
It would seem that it may be premature for Ms Degeneres to be planning a
wedding.
David Moffitt
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gPWdnQn-zdb22LPV...@comcast.com...
| Do you think your God would want you to post a quote that uses the word
| f*ck???
%%%% I'm quoting the liberal's godess Hitlery.
"You fucking idiot." (From Crossfire, p. 84 -- Hillary to a State Trooper
who was driving her to an event)
robw
You know, that God that thinks same sex marriages are wrong?
Yes or no?
Hint: pick one.
"David Moffitt" <dmof...@weaselstomping.org> wrote in message
news:UtudnU6V46Ex17PV...@earthlink.com...
David Moffitt
| Do you think your God would want you to use that word?
%%%% What word?
|
| You know, that God that thinks same sex marriages are wrong?
|
| Yes or no?
|
| Hint: pick one.
%%%% Yes. God said homosexuality is wrong.
"Fuck off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm
not going to talk to you too!! Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth
shut." (From American Evita by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 -- Hillary to her
State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning.")
|
|
The Real Roman?
> In our last episode, <rcednXS70-xNsrPVnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@comcast.com>, the
> lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> > Tom Sr. wrote:
> >> On May 16, 6:58 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
> >>> relationship?
>
>
> >> "California's chief justice emphasized Thursday that the court's
> >> action does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-
> >> sex marriage ceremonies. He added that the decision did 'not affect
> >> the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against
> >> polygamy and the marriage of close relatives'."
> > Simple logic seems to dictate that if prohibitions against same sex
> > marriage are unconstitutional, than so are prohibitions against polygamy.
>
> There is nothing logical about that conclusion. The prohibition on same sex
> marriage is sex-based discrimination. The prohibition on polygamy is not.
>
> --
> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
> Countdown: 248 days to go.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is not sex based. A man and a women can marry, there is no law that
says a women can't marry because of her sex. The constitution does not
grant the right of a father to marry his daughter is that
discrimination? The simple point is be the judges Dem or Reps, the
interpretation is bad law.
Lars Eighner
<f43fcc2a-ac61-4918...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented The Real Roman? broadcast on alt.politics:
> On May 16, 7:13 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode, <rcednXS70-xNsrPVnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@comcast.com>, the
>> lovely and talented David Hartung broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>> > Tom Sr. wrote:
>> >> On May 16, 6:58 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>> So, you see a same sex relationship as a marriage, but not a polygamous
>> >>> relationship?
>>
>> >>http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/05/16/1893/will_same-sex_marriag...
>>
>> >> "California's chief justice emphasized Thursday that the court's
>> >> action does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-
>> >> sex marriage ceremonies. He added that the decision did 'not affect
>> >> the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against
>> >> polygamy and the marriage of close relatives'."
>> > Simple logic seems to dictate that if prohibitions against same sex
>> > marriage are unconstitutional, than so are prohibitions against polygamy.
>>
>> There is nothing logical about that conclusion. The prohibition on same sex
>> marriage is sex-based discrimination. The prohibition on polygamy is not.
>>
>> --
>> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
>> Countdown: 248 days to go.
> It is not sex based.
Of course it is.
> A man and a women can marry, there is no law that says a women can't marry
> because of her sex.
This was exactly the reasoning used to defend miscegenation laws: whites can
marry whites, blacks can marry blacks, so everyone has a right to marry.
That was nonsense when it was applied to race, and it is nonsense when it is
applied to sex.
Of course it is sex discrimination. If the words "man" and "woman" in the
statutes providing for marriage are replaced by "person," the problem
disappears.
> The constitution does not grant the right of a father to marry his
> daughter is that discrimination?
No. He can't marry his son either. He cannot marry his dog, regardless of
the breed, sex, religion, or national origin of the dog. He cannot marry a
corpse regardless of the corpse's sex.
Everyone is forbidden to marry within a certain degree of consanguinity
(varies by state). Everyone is forbidden to marry a child (age of consent
varies by state). Everyone is forbidden to marry an inanimate object, a
dead person, an animal, or anything other than another unmarried person of
the age of consent. That is not discrimination. It is when the prohibition
is contingent on the person's race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.
that it is discrimination.
> The simple point is be the judges Dem or Reps, the interpretation is bad
> law.
The equal protections of the laws is not bad law.
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:c8pt249su5ip7h534...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:38:37 -0500, David Hartung
| <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
|
| >Nic...@Click.com wrote:
|
|
| >>>> It is a social norm that one partner wed another---it
| >>>> is a civil contract. By law, that contract is between
| >>>> two (2) people. Enacted law (and social norm)
| >>>> established that only TWO (2) be given that right.
| >>> It is also a societal norm that in a marriage, partners be of opposite
sex.
| >>
| >> "Social norms" change with changes in society, Hartung.
| >
| >It is not yet a societal norm that men can marry men, or that women can
| >marry women. That is why it is taking court decisions to force the issue.
|
| Wrong again
|
| The issue is "forced" by those religious nutjobs
| demanding their religous dogma be enforced in public
| policy.
|
| No different than when Southern legislatures enforced
| segregation and miscegination laws.
|
| >Which means that polygamy is as valid as same sex marriage.
|
| Wrong
|
| Polygamy is a religious choice.
%%%% I would like to be married to the Barbie twins, and religion has
nothing to do with it.
|
| Same sex is a issue related to equal protection under
| the law.
%%%% How do you equate your "orientation" to race or gender?
"I need to be fucked more than twice a year!" ---- Hillary Clinton. (p. 170)
Alec Flegon's Dictionary of English Sex Quotations (London: Flegon Press,
1996):
|
| >>> So, if four people get together and form a business, they have no
right
| >>> to enter into contract with one another?
| >>
| >> Not a marriage contract
| >
| >I have been married for almost 28 years, I have never considered my
| >marriage license to be a contract. When did this definition come into
being?
|
| Well, see, there ya go, Hartung
|
| The difference is your "BELIEF"---not reality
|
| You cannot be legally married without a CIVIL CONTRACT
| issued by the government (state)
|
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:orpt24hpv9nhhvte4...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 May 2008 21:18:45 -0500, "David Moffitt"
| <dmof...@weaselstomping.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Get fucked! Get the fuck out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!" (From
| >Hillary's Scheme, p. 89 -- Hillary's various comments to her Secret
Service
| >detail agents)
|
| can be viewed here anytime dumb assholes like you come
| around, MuffitLoon
|
| We know it's bullshit----mostly because YOUR name is
| associated with it.......
%%%% ROTFLMAO! You can't handle the truth about the first lady of the
leftard party!
"Son of a bitch."(From American Evita by Christopher Anderson, p. 259 --
Hillary's opinion of President George W. Bush when she found out he secretly
visited Iraq just days before her highly publicized trip to Iraq)
|
| SNICKER
|
>===========================================================================
|
|
| On Sun, 11 May 2008 06:29:25 -0700 (PDT), Rightwinghank wrote:
| In defense of PAJAMATURDLET:
|
|
|
| >Ok Nick....I tried to make you see reason....
| >to see the light....and make you feel better......
| >and for all to stop the childish attacks....
|
| >but no....
|
| >Nick the nigger doesnt want to stop.
| >Nick the shut in angry emotional out of control nigger wants to
| >play...
|
| >Ok BOY......
|
| >If thats the way you want it.
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:2upt245kii8bsgp6d...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:39:03 -0500, David Hartung
| <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
|
| >Nic...@Click.com wrote:
| >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:43:54 -0500, David Hartung
| >> <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
| >>
| >>>> What you hear is tyranny of the majority taking a solid kick in its
ass.
| >>>> The Constitution was upheld, moron, not ignored.
| >>> My guess would be that the California was mangled.
| >>
| >> How is giving equal status to all Citizens considered
| >> "mangling" in your view?
| >
| >All citizens have had equal status.
|
| Only because the courts forced equality----and by all
| accounts still must
|
| Citizens who do not choose to follow nutty religious
| dogma are considered inelgible for equal status.
|
| You simply cannot argue that there is equality.
%%%% Your chosen "orientation" has nothing to do with race, creed, gender or
national origin. You have the right to marry any woman who will have you.
"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!" (From Inside The
White House by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she
spotted him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political
rally).
|
| >==============================================
|
| >From the beginning of the Democratic party, through the civil war and the
New Deal,
| > the South was the foundation stone of the party's national strength.
With the coming
| >of the civil-rights revolution, Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson
deployed the
| > federal government to support social equality. In reaction,
Republicans - from Goldwater
| >to Nixon to Reagan - developed a Southern strategy to win over white
voters in the
| >region who felt betrayed. That strategy involved using widely understood
code going
| >back to the civil war - phrases like "states' rights", used to justify
slavery - in an
| >updating of the well-worn strategy of invoking race to keep poor white
and black
| >Americans divided on issues of common interest. Thus the party of Lincoln
| >became the party of Reagan.
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:0hpt2416dapob2ft3...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 May 2008 21:39:32 GMT, "Wayne"
| <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
|
| >> I have been married for almost 28 years, I have never considered my
| >> marriage license to be a contract. When did this definition come into
| >> being?
|
| >prevents the gummint from coming and taking all the "stuff" when someone
| >dies.
| >
|
| Marriage is a civil contract
|
| Hence the court involvement in divorce.
|
| Business contracts are just divorces by a different
| label.
%%%% Like marriage, business contracts have limitations.
"Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (From The Truth About Hillary by Edward
Klein, p. 5 -- Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)
|
David Moffitt
%%%% An "orientation" is not race, sex, national origin, or religion.
|
| > The simple point is be the judges Dem or Reps, the interpretation is bad
| > law.
|
| The equal protections of the laws is not bad law.
%%%% You are not prevented from marrying a woman that will have you.
"Son of a bitch."(From American Evita by Christopher Anderson, p. 259 --
Hillary's opinion of President George W. Bush when she found out he secretly
visited Iraq just days before her highly publicized trip to Iraq)
|
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:nk6u24trptkos2hb4...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:56:31 -0500, "David Moffitt"
| <dmof...@weaselstomping.org> wrote:
|
| >| The equal protections of the laws is not bad law.
| >
| >%%%% You are not prevented from marrying a woman that will have you.
|
|
| You cannot legislate "opposite sex" limitations
| constitutionally.
%%%% Yes you can, just like it's restricted Polygamy, pedophilia and
necrophilia ect.. It's a choice you make that is not socially or culturally
acceptable. 97% of society is not going to accept your mockery of marrying
your boyfriend.
My dick is bigger than yours. So are my tits.---- Gandalf Grey Friday,
December 15, 2006 4:22 PM
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:0eqt24t40a4adp7ir...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:56:46 -0700 (PDT), "The Real| Of course it is. It is "sex based" because the
| consideration is what type of sex is involved and the
| gender of the partners.
|
| > A man and a women can marry, there is no law that
| >says a women can't marry because of her sex.
|
|
| The issue is telling a citizen they cannot marry based
| on their sexual orientation---when the identical set of
| parameters exist (single partner).
%%%% It IS restricted for Social reasons and Cultural reasons.
|
| >The constitution does not
| >grant the right of a father to marry his daughter is that
| >discrimination?
|
| No, that is legitimate social policy, based on cultural
| principles---both scientific and cultural.
|
| >The simple point is be the judges Dem or Reps, the
| >interpretation is bad law.
|
| Those who claim "bad law" are still whining about the
| courts allowing blacks full status and citizenship,
| womens rights of privacy, and allowing women to vote.
%%%% Maybe in the Democratic party but not the rest of society.
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:f7qt24prlq5svt2dc...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 May 2008 21:37:10 -0500, David Hartung
| <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
|
| >>
| >> There is nothing logical about that conclusion. The prohibition on
same sex
| >> marriage is sex-based discrimination. The prohibition on polygamy is
not.
| >
|
| A LEGITIMATE social policy.
|
| It is not legitimate in ANY sense to marry multiple
| wives. That is a religious choice.
%%%% So why are they barred from their religious choice? Isn't there a
seperation of church and state?
|
| It IS legitimate to legislatively restrict the number
| of partners you marry---for Social reasons and cultural
| reason
%%%% Then it IS legitimate to legislatively restrict the gender of partners
you marry---for Social reasons and cultural
reasons.
|
| It is NOT Legitimate to allow marriage rights (under a
| one partner system) for some, but deny it to others
| based on a RELIGIOUS set of beliefs.
%%%% It's not restricted for religious reasons, it is restricted due to
cultural and social reasons. (Remember there is a separation of church and
state) ":o)
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:12qt24d4jhcujamg9...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:07:34 -0500, David Hartung
| <d_ha...@comcast.net> wrote:
|
| >Simple logic seems to dictate that if prohibitions against same sex
| >marriage are unconstitutional, than so are prohibitions against polygamy.
|
| "rights"
|
| Marriage is a civil right accorded to heterosexual
| people----and the ONLY difference is gender
| considerations when the issue is SINGLE partner
| marriage.
|
| According that right to some, but denying it to others
| is discriminatory.
%%%% They are not denied the right to marry the opposite sex. By your
example pedophiles should not be denied consenting children.
"You sold out, you mother fucker! You sold out!" (From Inside by Joseph
Califano, p. 213 -- Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer)
|
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:5n6u24dk5p3d0uuoa...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:00:36 -0500, "David Moffitt"| Are you actually claiming that is fact?
%%%% Yes.
|
| And exactly why do you think it is?
%%%% The truth. Look it up stupid!
"Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me! Don't come within ten yards
of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!!?" (From Unlimited Access
by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 -- Hillary screaming at
her Secret Service detail)
David Moffitt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:nki034te7i7450ftc...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:05:56 -0500, "David Moffitt"
| <dmof...@weaselstomping.org> wrote:
|
| >| According that right to some, but denying it to others
| >| is discriminatory.
| >
| >%%%% They are not denied the right to marry the opposite sex.
|
| discriminatory, stupid.
%%%% Denying children from necrophiles is discriminatory by the same
standard.
|
| Doing so is institutionalizing a religious belief into
| law.
%%%% No it isn't. Like pedophilia it is a chosen "orientation" and society
finds it vile and repugnant.
“Actually, what I have is more properly termed "Closet Gaydar” ---- Kyle
Daulton 11/17/2005
Tom Sr.
> On Sunday 18 May 2008 01:06 pm Reverend Mother Tucker
> <mother-tuc...@wowmail.com> wrote:.
> > Even if'n they sing a lot of Gospel songs God will smite them eventually
> > on accounta marriage is SACRED.
> -
> >> You preach the "gospel" of Satan.
> -
> > You're totally confused. Go see an exorcist about that LEGION of
> > lying demons you got stuck up your dirty butt.
> -
> My butt is completely clean and I have no demons because I don't worship
> Satan like you do.
It's getting difficult to follow the quoting in this. However, I
think it is fairly clear who is writing what above.
Tucker is yet another one, like Patriot Games and a number of other
ultraconservative fanatics in the political newsgroups, who believe
they worship and serve God, when actually their true Master is Satan.
Because of their own blind hatred, they fail to understand that God is
Love and that it is Satan that is Hate.
With every hate-filled thought they think, and write, and do, they
truly follow Satan.
Also very basic to all religious, bigoted fanatics is they are never
able to understand that with regards to gay relationships and same-sex
marriage, that this is about *LOVE*.
Due to their distorted, limited, twisted view of the world, they
cannot comprehend the feeling and thought that gay marriage is *truly*
about who a person loves.
The idea that two gay people can love one another is beyond them.
Because of their *own* base and animalistic morals and beliefs, they
fail to understand there is far more to gay relationships and marriage
than sex, just as there is far more than sex to heterosexual
relationships and marriage.
Because such people as Tucker and Games live in Hate, they cannot and
will not ever understand Love.
-Tom Sr.