Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
No One
See <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL>
(note: I can read the summary currently on <http://www.sfgate.com>
but cannot read the article - my ISP seems to be having a problem
with a DNS server causing my browser to just sit there trying to
resolve www.sfgate.com - it must have failed just after I loaded
the site's home page.)
Apparently it did not get the necessary votes in the Senate. GOP
supporters are encouraged anyway - I guess they figure their pandering
to right-wing loons, who like Charlie Brown will always try to kick
the football no matter how often Lucy pulls it away, will pay off.
Strife767
Here, I'll paste the full article:
~~~~~~~~~~
Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Ban
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
(06-07) 07:46 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay
marriage, but supporters said new votes for the measure represent progress
that gives conservative Republicans reason to vote on Election Day.
The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an
up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment's failure was no
surprise, but supporters said the vote reflected growing support among
senators and Americans.
"We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among
supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amendment was last
voted on in 2004. "That's often what's required over several years to get
there, particularly to a two-thirds vote."
A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as
the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News.
But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the
poll found.
"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or
the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to
include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a possible
presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not
support the amendment.
The measure's defeat in the Senate is by no means its last stand, said its
supporters.
"I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it,"
said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it
up."
The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner,
R-Ohio.
"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans,"
Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want
a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."
The defeat came despite daily appeals for passage by President Bush, whose
standing is troubled by sagging poll numbers and a dissatisfied conservative
base.
The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage
as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.
Democrats, all of whom except Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska oppose the
amendment, said the debate was a divisive political ploy.
"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into
the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which
legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil
unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states
to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of
the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in
ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with constitutional amendments
and 26 with statutes.
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To
become law, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and
then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
The Senate tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 required for
approval of a constitutional amendment.
No One
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >See <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL>
> >
> Here, I'll paste the full article:
Thanks - everything seems to be working now, so I can get it directly.
>
> Democrats, all of whom except Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska oppose the
> amendment, said the debate was a divisive political ploy.
>
> "The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into
> the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which
> legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil
> unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states
> to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
>
> In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of
> the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
Hatch is an idiot: Kennedy's statement about "writing bigotry into the
constitution" is correct and does not imply that "half of the U.S.
Senate is a crew of bigots", but rather that regardless of whether
they are bigots, roughly 50 senators figure that the way to get
members of their party reelected is to pander to bigots (and then
ignore them after the election so these senators can spend their time
screwing 99.9% of the American public for the benefit of the richest
of the rich).
Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
If this country ever were to POISON its Constitution --
the guarantor of our personal liberties and FREEDOMS --
then it would probably be all over for this country.
"Big Brother" and his tyranny would be next!
So -- once AGAIN, Warmonger-in-Thief Bush has an
omelet on his face. A *huge* omelet! As do ALL of the
hateful and bigoted losers in the Senate.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER who those bigots are!
1/3 of them will be up for re-election, and this will
be a wonderful opportunity for America's sensible and
FAIR-minded egalitarians to get RID of them.
Remember, TOO, that RRR Cultists comprise only
5% of the electorate. We who are egalitarians
OUTNUMBER them vastly -- several times to one!
All we need to do is get out there and VOTE this
time, and they've HAD it. We can DESTROY the loath-
some agendas of the RRR Cult in just *one day*, on
November 7th. Once and for all !!
>See <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL>
>
> (note: I can read the summary currently on <http://www.sfgate.com>
> but cannot read the article - my ISP seems to be having a problem
> with a DNS server causing my browser to just sit there trying to
> resolve www.sfgate.com - it must have failed just after I loaded
> the site's home page.)
Here it is:
Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Ban
- By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
(06-07) 07:46 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment
to ban gay marriage, but supporters said new votes for the
measure represent progress that gives conservative Republicans
reason to vote on Election Day.
The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter
for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment's failure
was no surprise, but supporters said the vote reflected growing
support among senators and Americans.
"We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among
supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amend-
ment was last voted on in 2004. "That's often what's required over
several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote."
A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and
a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll
out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority opposes amen-
ding the Constitution on this issue, the poll found.
"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected represen-
tatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of
marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,
a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on
Tuesday he does not support the amendment.
The measure's defeat in the Senate is by no means its last stand,
said its supporters.
"I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry
about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I think they are going
to keep bringing it up."
The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader
John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans,"
Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members
who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."
The defeat came despite daily appeals for passage by President
Bush, whose standing is troubled by sagging poll numbers and a
dissatisfied conservative base.
The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming
gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family
as never before.
Democrats, all of whom except Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska oppose
the amendment, said the debate was a divisive political ploy.
"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry
into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts,
which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against
civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for
states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over
half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage
in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with constitutional
amendments and 26 with statutes.
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex
marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the
Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least
38 state legislatures.
The Senate tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the
67 required for approval of a constitutional amendment.
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL
> Apparently it did not get the necessary votes in the Senate. GOP
> supporters are encouraged anyway - I guess they figure their pandering
> to right-wing loons, who like Charlie Brown will always try to kick
> the football no matter how often Lucy pulls it away, will pay off.
And hopefully, those hateful loons will ALWAYS land squarely and
painfully on the back of their heads -- just like Charlie Brown!
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
rbw...@juno.com
Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!! wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT,
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
>
> AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
>
> If this country ever were to POISON its Constitution --
> the guarantor of our personal liberties and FREEDOMS --
> then it would probably be all over for this country.
>
> "Big Brother" and his tyranny would be next!
>
> So -- once AGAIN, Warmonger-in-Thief Bush has an
> omelet on his face. A *huge* omelet! As do ALL of the
> hateful and bigoted losers in the Senate.
the President has done right.
> REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER who those bigots are!
> 1/3 of them will be up for re-election, and this will
> be a wonderful opportunity for America's sensible and
> FAIR-minded egalitarians to get RID of them.
Why do FAIR-minded egalitarians always want to get RID of other people?
Are you sure you want to contend against grown adults?
> Remember, TOO, that RRR Cultists comprise only
> 5% of the electorate. We who are egalitarians
> OUTNUMBER them vastly -- several times to one!
>
> All we need to do is get out there and VOTE this
> time, and they've HAD it. We can DESTROY the loath-
> some agendas of the RRR Cult in just *one day*, on
> November 7th. Once and for all !!
Well, I don't think so. God was the one who said not to commit
adultery and not to kill. Are you going to try to destroy God?
> in ways that would ban same-sex marriage - 19 with constitutional
> amendments and 26 with statutes.
>
> The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex
> marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the
> Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least
> 38 state legislatures.
>
> The Senate tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the
> 67 required for approval of a constitutional amendment.
>
> URL:
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL
>
> > Apparently it did not get the necessary votes in the Senate. GOP
> > supporters are encouraged anyway - I guess they figure their pandering
> > to right-wing loons, who like Charlie Brown will always try to kick
> > the football no matter how often Lucy pulls it away, will pay off.
>
> And hopefully, those hateful loons will ALWAYS land squarely and
> painfully on the back of their heads -- just like Charlie Brown!
>
Not surprising you would identify with Lucy.
Lucy was not being entirely honest, either.
Popular agendas of immoral people are not the best foundation for life,
Craig.
Matthew 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and
doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his
house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Robert B. Winn
Strife767
>
>God was the one who said not to commit
>adultery and not to kill. Are you going to try to destroy God?
ROFL, you can't destroy what isn't there.
bobandcarole
It will never be accepted in the Church and that's the only union
that's legal in the eyes of God
Strife767
wrote:
Tell someone who gives a shit. I don't care what your cult accepts, or what
your imaginary friend thinks. :)
==========
"Being called a "bigot" by the likes of YOU is a badge of honor....thanks"
--bob&carole
rbw...@juno.com
Well, now, that is a bold statement. So what about Jesus Christ?
Robert B. Winn
bobandcarole
You will.
The marriage ban will pass eventually...count on it
>
> ==========
> "Being called a "bigot" by the likes of YOU is a badge of honor....thanks"
> --bob&carole
I love the way perceive my statement to be in your favor, Jethro...LOL
Andrealphus
rbw...@juno.com at rbw...@juno.com, typed this:
What about him?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Johnny
"Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
news:l8ge821o4qhfm1nrr...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT,
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
>
> AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
On party lines, which will alientate democratic voters.
If the democrats lose as many of their constituents' votes as are against
same-sex marriage the republicans should win by landslide in future
elections.
This marriage amendment is a catch 22 for gays.
If dems vote for it they lose their agenda.
If dems vote against it, they alienate much of their constituent base.
rbw...@juno.com
Andrealphus wrote:
> In News 1149725861....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,,
> rbw...@juno.com at rbw...@juno.com, typed this:
>
> > Strife767 wrote:
> >> On 7 Jun 2006 15:28:14 -0700, rbw...@juno.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> God was the one who said not to commit
> >>> adultery and not to kill. Are you going to try to destroy God?
> >>
> >> ROFL, you can't destroy what isn't there.
> >
> > Well, now, that is a bold statement. So what about Jesus Christ?
>
> What about him?
the earth. I think that you might want to tell him your ideas. They
don't mean much to me.
Robert B. Winn
Andrealphus
> Andrealphus wrote:
>> In News 1149725861....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,,
>> rbw...@juno.com at rbw...@juno.com, typed this:
>>
>>> Strife767 wrote:
>>>> On 7 Jun 2006 15:28:14 -0700, rbw...@juno.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> God was the one who said not to commit
>>>>> adultery and not to kill. Are you going to try to destroy God?
>>>>
>>>> ROFL, you can't destroy what isn't there.
>>>
>>> Well, now, that is a bold statement. So what about Jesus Christ?
>>
>> What about him?
> Well, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ is going to return and
> judge the earth.
According to Aesop's Fables, the fox will jump for the grapes, fail, and
then declare that the grapes were probably sour anyways. So what? One
fable is as good as the other I suppose.
> I think that you might want to tell him your ideas.
> They don't mean much to me.
I think you'd be better off telling him the lies you've been telling us.
Your imaginary diety will be far more interested in preparing a special
place in hell for you.
Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
If this country ever were to POISON its Constitution --
the guarantor of our personal liberties and FREEDOMS --
then it would probably be all over for this country.
"Big Brother" and his tyranny would be next!
So -- once AGAIN, Warmonger-in-Thief Bush has an
omelet on his face. A *huge* omelet! As do ALL of the
hateful and bigoted losers in the Senate.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER who those bigots are!
1/3 of them will be up for re-election, and this will
be a wonderful opportunity for America's sensible and
FAIR-minded egalitarians to get RID of them.
Remember, TOO, that RRR Cultists comprise only
5% of the electorate. We who are egalitarians
OUTNUMBER them vastly -- several times to one!
All we need to do is get out there and VOTE this
time, and they've HAD it. We can DESTROY the loath-
some agendas of the RRR Cult in just *one day*, on
November 7th. Once and for all !!
>See <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL>
Here it is:
in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with constitutional
amendments and 26 with statutes.
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex
marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the
Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least
38 state legislatures.
The Senate tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the
67 required for approval of a constitutional amendment.
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL
> Apparently it did not get the necessary votes in the Senate. GOP
> supporters are encouraged anyway - I guess they figure their pandering
> to right-wing loons, who like Charlie Brown will always try to kick
> the football no matter how often Lucy pulls it away, will pay off.
And hopefully, those hateful loons will ALWAYS land squarely and
painfully on the back of their heads -- just like Charlie Brown!
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Jeff North
Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
<57le829hd1thmdhrn...@4ax.com> wrote:
Yes you can!!!!!
With proper medication and therapy all those voices in their heads
disappear.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
rbw...@juno.com
Andrealphus wrote:
> In News 1149734979.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
> rbw...@juno.com at rbw...@juno.com, typed this:
>
> > Andrealphus wrote:
> >> In News 1149725861....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,,
> >> rbw...@juno.com at rbw...@juno.com, typed this:
> >>
> >>> Strife767 wrote:
> >>>> On 7 Jun 2006 15:28:14 -0700, rbw...@juno.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> God was the one who said not to commit
> >>>>> adultery and not to kill. Are you going to try to destroy God?
> >>>>
> >>>> ROFL, you can't destroy what isn't there.
> >>>
> >>> Well, now, that is a bold statement. So what about Jesus Christ?
> >>
> >> What about him?
> > Well, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ is going to return and
> > judge the earth.
>
> According to Aesop's Fables, the fox will jump for the grapes, fail, and
> then declare that the grapes were probably sour anyways. So what? One
> fable is as good as the other I suppose.
>
>
> > I think that you might want to tell him your ideas.
> > They don't mean much to me.
>
> I think you'd be better off telling him the lies you've been telling us.
> Your imaginary diety will be far more interested in preparing a special
> place in hell for you.
Well, I will tell him what I told you. What else would I do?
Everyone will be rewarded for his own works. I was about the only one
who told you people the truth.
Robert B. Winn
Andrealphus
Which, thus far, has been nothing but lies. Have fun in the lake-of-filre,
liar Robert.
rbw...@juno.com
Jeff North wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:36:59 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
> Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> <57le829hd1thmdhrn...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
> >| On 7 Jun 2006 15:28:14 -0700, rbw...@juno.com wrote:
> >|
> >| >
> >| >God was the one who said not to commit
> >| >adultery and not to kill. Are you going to try to destroy God?
> >|
> >| ROFL, you can't destroy what isn't there.
>
> Yes you can!!!!!
> With proper medication and therapy all those voices in their heads
> disappear.
if I hear voices, I always said, Yes, I do.
What did they think, I was going to say I heard everything except
voices?
Robert B. Winn
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave
over a small minded attempt to take away individual freedom
without legitimate purpose.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Johnny wrote:
> "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
> <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:l8ge821o4qhfm1nrr...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT,
> > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
> >
> > AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
>
> On party lines, which will alientate democratic voters.
> If the democrats lose as many of their constituents'
There was a fair amount of aisle crossing on this one.
The vote was actually to close debate and it was 49 to
something so you know that a few repubs didn't vote
for this thing. It was actually a few more as I believe
a couple of dems votes for it.
Johnny
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1149781683.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I guess we will see if the people find out how their representatives voted.
>
Strife767
wrote:
>
>Strife767 wrote:
>> On 7 Jun 2006 15:38:51 -0700, "bobandcarole" <bobandc...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >No One wrote:
>> >> See <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/national/w073842D73.DTL>
>> >>
>> >> (note: I can read the summary currently on <http://www.sfgate.com>
>> >> but cannot read the article - my ISP seems to be having a problem
>> >> with a DNS server causing my browser to just sit there trying to
>> >> resolve www.sfgate.com - it must have failed just after I loaded
>> >> the site's home page.)
>> >>
>> >> Apparently it did not get the necessary votes in the Senate. GOP
>> >> supporters are encouraged anyway - I guess they figure their pandering
>> >> to right-wing loons, who like Charlie Brown will always try to kick
>> >> the football no matter how often Lucy pulls it away, will pay off.
>> >
>> >It will never be accepted in the Church and that's the only union
>> >that's legal in the eyes of God
>>
>> Tell someone who gives a shit. I don't care what your cult accepts, or what
>> your imaginary friend thinks. :)
>
>You will.
Uh, no, I won't. :P
>The marriage ban will pass eventually...count on it
It just lost its best shot. With support for same-sex marriage growing
slowly but surely, any attempt made after this one will fail even worse. :)
>>
>> ==========
>> "Being called a "bigot" by the likes of YOU is a badge of honor....thanks"
>> --bob&carole
>
>I love the way perceive my statement to be in your favor, Jethro...LOL
Just letting people know that you admit to it. But now everyone will know
you're racist too. Thanks for making it so obvious. :)
==========
"Being called a "bigot" by the likes of YOU is a badge of honor....thanks"
--bob&carole
"the country will be black and mexican within 100 years if steps aren't
taken now" --bob&carole
Pr0r3p
Johnny wrote:
> "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
> <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:l8ge821o4qhfm1nrr...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT,
> > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
> >
> > AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
>
> On party lines, which will alientate democratic voters.
> If the democrats lose as many of their constituents' votes as are against
> same-sex marriage the republicans should win by landslide in future
> elections.
> This marriage amendment is a catch 22 for gays.
> If dems vote for it they lose their agenda.
Ahh, you mean demanding equal treatment for everyone.
> If dems vote against it, they alienate much of their constituent base.
Or not. Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of Democrats
either way. Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
of this at the polls.
Johnny
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149789063.9...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Johnny wrote:
>> "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
>> <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> news:l8ge821o4qhfm1nrr...@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT,
>> > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
>> >
>> > AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
>>
>> On party lines, which will alientate democratic voters.
>> If the democrats lose as many of their constituents' votes as are against
>> same-sex marriage the republicans should win by landslide in future
>> elections.
>> This marriage amendment is a catch 22 for gays.
>> If dems vote for it they lose their agenda.
>
> Ahh, you mean demanding equal treatment for everyone.
Demands are not necessarily going to be met.
>> If dems vote against it, they alienate much of their constituent base.
>
> Or not.
A simple knowledge of the proportion of voters against same-sex marriage and
the proportion that voted democratic and republican, amongst the people, is
enough to know that a great number of democratic voters are against same-sex
marriage.
> Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
> don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of Democrats
> either way.
'Values voters' means nothing to you?
Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
More reason to jump ship, I see.
> Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
> of this at the polls.
Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
Pr0r3p
Johnny wrote:
> "Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1149789063.9...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Johnny wrote:
> >> "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
> >> <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> >> news:l8ge821o4qhfm1nrr...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT,
> >> > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
> >> >
> >> > AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
> >>
> >> On party lines, which will alientate democratic voters.
> >> If the democrats lose as many of their constituents' votes as are against
> >> same-sex marriage the republicans should win by landslide in future
> >> elections.
> >> This marriage amendment is a catch 22 for gays.
> >> If dems vote for it they lose their agenda.
> >
> > Ahh, you mean demanding equal treatment for everyone.
>
> Demands are not necessarily going to be met.
The marriage amendment got shot down, A-G-A-I-N.
>
> >> If dems vote against it, they alienate much of their constituent base.
> >
> > Or not.
>
> A simple knowledge of the proportion of voters against same-sex marriage and
> the proportion that voted democratic and republican, amongst the people, is
> enough to know that a great number of democratic voters are against same-sex
> marriage.
I guess you're going to tell us you possess this knowledge, right?
LOL!
>
> > Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
> > don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of Democrats
> > either way.
>
> 'Values voters' means nothing to you?
Sure.
> Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
Am I? Would you care to show _where_ I said that?
> More reason to jump ship, I see.
Care to show where I said that? No? I didn't think so.
>
> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
> > of this at the polls.
>
> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
Johnny
>
> Johnny wrote:
>> "Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149789063.9...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Johnny wrote:
>> >> "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
>> >> <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:l8ge821o4qhfm1nrr...@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:38:32 GMT,
>> >> > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment fails
>> >> >
>> >> > AS, fortunately, everyone knew that it would.
>> >>
>> >> On party lines, which will alientate democratic voters.
>> >> If the democrats lose as many of their constituents' votes as are
>> >> against
>> >> same-sex marriage the republicans should win by landslide in future
>> >> elections.
>> >> This marriage amendment is a catch 22 for gays.
>> >> If dems vote for it they lose their agenda.
>> >
>> > Ahh, you mean demanding equal treatment for everyone.
>>
>> Demands are not necessarily going to be met.
>
> The marriage amendment got shot down, A-G-A-I-N.
By a minority vote in the Senate.
Every state has approved a marriage amendment that had it on their ballot.
>>
>> >> If dems vote against it, they alienate much of their constituent base.
>> >
>> > Or not.
>>
>> A simple knowledge of the proportion of voters against same-sex marriage
>> and
>> the proportion that voted democratic and republican, amongst the people,
>> is
>> enough to know that a great number of democratic voters are against
>> same-sex
>> marriage.
>
> I guess you're going to tell us you possess this knowledge, right?
> LOL!
Of course I do.
It is easy to discern such things if you observe the data.
What do you think 80 percent against same-sex marriage at the State ballot
box means and more than fifty percent of those casting votes in the Senate
against means?
>>
>> > Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
>> > don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of Democrats
>> > either way.
>>
>> 'Values voters' means nothing to you?
>
> Sure.
>
>> Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
>
> Am I? Would you care to show _where_ I said that?
Well, it seems that the Dems in the Senate want to ignore their constituent
base of values voters in this issue.
>> More reason to jump ship, I see.
>
> Care to show where I said that? No? I didn't think so.
I do not need to show you.
I am showing you what the Dems in the Senate have done compared to what
their constituents have done.
Taxation without representation already started one revolution, and that is
how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt to break
free of it somehow.
>>
>> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
>> > of this at the polls.
>>
>> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
>
> Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
Your assumption that it is onlu Christians who are against same-sex marriage
is amiss.
What about every other group that disagrees with same-sex marriages?
Methinks you are only an anti-Christian mal content.
BOB
news:Nn0ig.16528$EX2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
Go back and read what Pr0r3p actually said, Joanny. He or she didn't say
that about "all" xtians, just the xtian whackos like yourself.
>
Johnny
"BOB" <s...@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns97DC9...@70.169.32.36...
Seems to me you are calling some 80 percent of the nation's voters Christian
whackos.
I wonder how you arrive at these conclusions.
Johnny
Is it normally your character to label all persons who are against your
personal objective (in matters of government), and in this case some 80
percent of the nation's voters as Christian whackos?
LOL!!!!!!!
Some chance you have of winning.
When will you realize that 80 percent of the nation's voters doesn't mean
that everyone who is against same-sex marriage is what you call a Christian
whacko?
At the rate you are going, pretty soon Christian whacko could be en vogue.
I personally do not see anything wrong with being a Christian.
The tenets of Christianity are quite nice.
If you would lean them and stop resisting them maybe you would be happier.
I am not sure if you would be as rich, but I am relatively certain that you
would be happier.
Johnny
Then again, maybe you would be richer.
I am not sure what your financial condition is.
BOB
news:_F0ig.16533$EX2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
Didn't you read the part where I distinctly specified "whackos like
yourself", Joanny? I certainly don't believe that 80% of the nations
voters are idiots like you.
> I wonder how you arrive at these conclusions.
>
It's easy, Joanny. Go back and read some of your past and present ng
posts and responses.
>
>
BOB
news:YJ0ig.16535$EX2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
See what I mean, Joanny, you just keep proving my point about your being
a looney xtian whack job.
>
>
BOB
news:ZK0ig.16536$EX2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
I'll wager it's much better than yours, Joanny, and I certainly don't
credit my good fortune to any mythical "god" but rather to my own
intiative, actions and hard work.
>
>
rbw...@juno.com
What about your spelling? You answer someone named Johnny and spell
his name Joanny. Does that seem right to you?
Robert B. Winn
Pr0r3p
1 vote or 100, it got shot down, AGAIN.
> Every state has approved a marriage amendment that had it on their ballot.
>
> >>
> >> >> If dems vote against it, they alienate much of their constituent base.
> >> >
> >> > Or not.
> >>
> >> A simple knowledge of the proportion of voters against same-sex marriage
> >> and
> >> the proportion that voted democratic and republican, amongst the people,
> >> is
> >> enough to know that a great number of democratic voters are against
> >> same-sex
> >> marriage.
> >
> > I guess you're going to tell us you possess this knowledge, right?
> > LOL!
>
> Of course I do.
> It is easy to discern such things if you observe the data.
> What do you think 80 percent against same-sex marriage at the State ballot
> box means and more than fifty percent of those casting votes in the Senate
> against means?
Umm, that there are alot of bigots out there?
>
> >>
> >> > Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
> >> > don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of Democrats
> >> > either way.
> >>
> >> 'Values voters' means nothing to you?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >> Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
> >
> > Am I? Would you care to show _where_ I said that?
>
> Well, it seems that the Dems in the Senate want to ignore their constituent
> base of values voters in this issue.
You didn't show _where_ I said that...
>
> >> More reason to jump ship, I see.
> >
> > Care to show where I said that? No? I didn't think so.
>
> I do not need to show you.
That's it, run away, pussy.
> I am showing you what the Dems in the Senate have done compared to what
> their constituents have done.
> Taxation without representation
Quit your fucking whining already. Elected representatives don't have
the right to infringe on anyone's rights, no matter what their
constituents say or how many say it.
>already started one revolution, and that is
> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt to break
> free of it somehow.
>
> >>
> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
> >> > of this at the polls.
> >>
> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
> >
> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
>
> Your assumption that it is onlu Christians who are against same-sex marriage
> is amiss.
It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
"majority" means nothing to you, eh?
> What about every other group that disagrees with same-sex marriages?
Small percentages compared to the whiney christian whackos...
> Methinks you are only an anti-Christian mal content.
"Youthinks" not.
Ozzy
>
> Well, I don't think so. God was the one who said not to commit
> adultery
Are god's followers incapable of love? Works to keep
_me_ from cheating on my girlfriend.
> and not to kill.
Fuck, but you ARE a scary lot.
Are you going to try to destroy God?
No need.
Johnny
"BOB" <s...@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns97DC9C...@70.169.32.36...
But, if I vote with the 80 percent how are you not calling them wackos or
idiots now?
>> I wonder how you arrive at these conclusions.
>>
> It's easy, Joanny. Go back and read some of your past and present ng
> posts and responses.
LOL!
Go back and look at how HIV got into the blood supply in the USA.
Johnny
"BOB" <s...@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns97DC9C...@70.169.32.36...
What you call looney xtian whack job is what will sink your ship.
Johnny
"BOB" <s...@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns97DC9D...@70.169.32.36...
I don't really care about your purported attribution concerning your
financial condition.
There is a Constitution in the USA and if you reap that status via criminal
acts, then I am not seeing you as deserving of it.
LOL!
Johnny
Temporary victories when they expose the Dems as being pro-gay rights and
pro-abortion on demand rights are only temporary victories.
Those babies you have slaughtered as a matter of convenience won't just go
away.
LOL!
The memory is indelible.
>> Every state has approved a marriage amendment that had it on their
>> ballot.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> If dems vote against it, they alienate much of their constituent
>> >> >> base.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or not.
>> >>
>> >> A simple knowledge of the proportion of voters against same-sex
>> >> marriage
>> >> and
>> >> the proportion that voted democratic and republican, amongst the
>> >> people,
>> >> is
>> >> enough to know that a great number of democratic voters are against
>> >> same-sex
>> >> marriage.
>> >
>> > I guess you're going to tell us you possess this knowledge, right?
>> > LOL!
>>
>> Of course I do.
>> It is easy to discern such things if you observe the data.
>> What do you think 80 percent against same-sex marriage at the State
>> ballot
>> box means and more than fifty percent of those casting votes in the
>> Senate
>> against means?
>
> Umm, that there are alot of bigots out there?
Your bigotry is something that does not go unnoticed.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
>> >> > don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of
>> >> > Democrats
>> >> > either way.
>> >>
>> >> 'Values voters' means nothing to you?
>> >
>> > Sure.
>> >
>> >> Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
>> >
>> > Am I? Would you care to show _where_ I said that?
>>
>> Well, it seems that the Dems in the Senate want to ignore their
>> constituent
>> base of values voters in this issue.
>
> You didn't show _where_ I said that...
I wasn't trying to.
The evidence is clear enough.
I am not concerned about your ideas.
I am more concerned that the people of the USA are represented by their
elected officials.
>>
>> >> More reason to jump ship, I see.
>> >
>> > Care to show where I said that? No? I didn't think so.
>>
>> I do not need to show you.
>
> That's it, run away, pussy.
LOL!
Your attack is going to be repelled much easier than you realize.
>> I am showing you what the Dems in the Senate have done compared to what
>> their constituents have done.
>> Taxation without representation
>
> Quit your fucking whining already.
You first.
> Elected representatives don't have
> the right to infringe on anyone's rights,
So, they should stop infringing on their constituents rights to
representation.
> no matter what their
> constituents say or how many say it.
Sorry. You are outnumbered.
Pitch another bitch now?
>>already started one revolution, and that is
>> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
>> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt to
>> break
>> free of it somehow.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
>> >> > of this at the polls.
>> >>
>> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
>> >
>> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
>>
>> Your assumption that it is only Christians who are against same-sex
>> marriage
>> is amiss.
>
> It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
> "majority" means nothing to you, eh?
80 percent is more than you can handle.
>> What about every other group that disagrees with same-sex marriages?
>
> Small percentages compared to the whiney christian whackos...
Again, you show your anti-Christian demeanor.
>> Methinks you are only an anti-Christian mal content.
>
> "Youthinks" not.
Who needs to think with the words you spew?
Strife767
Blahblahblah, your amendment sunk, suck it up and shut up already.
bob&carole
They will never marry here, the local ministers and the JOTP refuse to
perform the ceremony
Johnny
"Strife767" <stri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2jph8254m49hmc16c...@4ax.com...
Nah. You are incapable of silencing the anti-GAY movement.
LOL!
Strife767
I'm not trying to silence you. Just letting you know that your hot air isn't
changing the fact that your best shot at passing the anti-gay amendment was
a failure. Blathering on about it longer just makes you look sore.
Strife767
wrote:
>
>Dave wrote:
>> Congratulations to the Senate for allowing fairness to prevail
>> over a small minded attempt to take away individual freedom
>> without legitimate purpose.
>
>They will never marry here
They already have, lol.
>the local ministers and the JOTP refuse to
>perform the ceremony
Who cares?
==========
"Being called a "bigot" by the likes of YOU is a badge of honor....thanks"
--bob&carole
"the country will be black and mexican within 100 years if steps aren't
taken now" --bob&carole
"if my son was a [homosexual] I would disown him" --bob&carole
bob&carole
Everything I said is true.
The mexicans are invading this country at an alarming rate.
They pay no taxes, take American jobs and leave babies for the Welfare
system to care for.
Why do you think we're building a fence across the border..fool
rbw...@juno.com
Why does not killing other people seem frightening to you?
Robert B. Winn
BOB
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Have a trusted friend explain it to you, Looney Toon, preferably someone
who isn't a nutcase like you. That leaves Joanny out.
BOB
news:Tm5ig.69062$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
Show show proof where you vote with 80% of the nation's voters, Joanny.
You are an idiot.
>>> I wonder how you arrive at these conclusions.
>>>
>> It's easy, Joanny. Go back and read some of your past and present ng
>> posts and responses.
>
> LOL!
> Go back and look at how HIV got into the blood supply in the USA.
>
How much of it are you responsible for, Joanny?
>
>
BOB
news:sn5ig.69063$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
You, Joanny? Don't make me laugh. You are a fool.
>
>
BOB
news:ap5ig.69064$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
I wonder if you are really as stupid as you appear to be in your ng posts
and responses, Joanny. Is it possible?
>
>
Mark Sebree
If it is legal for a couple to get married, the Justice of the Peace
cannot legally refuse to perform the marriage. He or she is a
representative and employee of the local and state government, and
therefore is required to treat everyone equally. That means that if
the marriage license if valid, the Justice of the Peace has no choice
in the matter.
The local clergy, however, because of Freedom of Religion, does have a
choice. However, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that there
are some clergy local to you that will perform same sex marriages. And
that includes clergy that do not have any formal church. For example,
a local Wiccan Priest and Priestess could perform the ceremony, as long
as they are licensed to do so. And your local Universal Unitarian
church is likely to already be doing commitment ceremonies.
You cannot say what your local clergy will and will not do, because
each of them will make that decision for themselves, according to THEIR
beliefs. Your opinions in the matter are not needed.
Mark Sebree
Eric Brze
Because it turned on its head by killing people who collected sticks
on the Sabbath day.
Andrealphus
at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
The ministers are irrelevant, and the JOTP can be fired and replaced for not
doing their jobs.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
bobandcarole
Andrealphus wrote:
> In News 1149822842.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,, bob&carole
> at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
>
> > Dave wrote:
> >> Congratulations to the Senate for allowing fairness to prevail
> >> over a small minded attempt to take away individual freedom
> >> without legitimate purpose.
> >
> > They will never marry here, the local ministers and the JOTP refuse to
> > perform the ceremony
>
> The ministers are irrelevant, and the JOTP can be fired and replaced for not
> doing their jobs.
Even when the Mayor APPROVES? :-)
Andrealphus
at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
> Andrealphus wrote:
>> In News 1149822842.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,,
>> bob&carole at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
>>
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> Congratulations to the Senate for allowing fairness to prevail
>>>> over a small minded attempt to take away individual freedom
>>>> without legitimate purpose.
>>>
>>> They will never marry here, the local ministers and the JOTP refuse
>>> to perform the ceremony
>>
>> The ministers are irrelevant, and the JOTP can be fired and replaced
>> for not doing their jobs.
>
> Even when the Mayor APPROVES? :-)
The Mayor can be replaced as well.
Pr0r3p
Wah wah wah. Go cry at someone else.
This from the most hateful, whining bigot in this newsgroup. Ask me
how much I care about a bigot like you labelling other people as
bigots?
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
> >> >> > don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of
> >> >> > Democrats
> >> >> > either way.
> >> >>
> >> >> 'Values voters' means nothing to you?
> >> >
> >> > Sure.
> >> >
> >> >> Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
> >> >
> >> > Am I? Would you care to show _where_ I said that?
> >>
> >> Well, it seems that the Dems in the Senate want to ignore their
> >> constituent
> >> base of values voters in this issue.
> >
> > You didn't show _where_ I said that...
>
> I wasn't trying to.
> The evidence is clear enough.
Ahhh, more "evidence" from Johnny. That's about as useful as an empty
glass of water.
> I am not concerned about your ideas.
The quit replying, fucknut
> I am more concerned that the people of the USA are represented by their
> elected officials.
And, elected officials aren't permitted to violate people's rights, no
matter how much you whine at them about it.
>
> >>
> >> >> More reason to jump ship, I see.
> >> >
> >> > Care to show where I said that? No? I didn't think so.
> >>
> >> I do not need to show you.
> >
> > That's it, run away, pussy.
>
> LOL!
> Your attack is going to be repelled much easier than you realize.
If your history of defending what you say is any indication of how well
you'll defend your statement this time, the odds are against you.
>
> >> I am showing you what the Dems in the Senate have done compared to what
> >> their constituents have done.
> >> Taxation without representation
> >
> > Quit your fucking whining already.
>
> You first.
>
> > Elected representatives don't have
> > the right to infringe on anyone's rights,
>
> So, they should stop infringing on their constituents rights to
> representation.
They're not. They have a right to not do what their constituents want
as soon as what their constituents want is unconstitutional. When the
fuck are you going to learn that, you fucking moron?
>
> > no matter what their
> > constituents say or how many say it.
>
> Sorry. You are outnumbered.
> Pitch another bitch now?
LOL!!! Let's see, the amendment was shot down.
>
> >>already started one revolution, and that is
> >> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
> >> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt to
> >> break
> >> free of it somehow.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
> >> >> > of this at the polls.
> >> >>
> >> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
> >>
> >> Your assumption that it is only Christians who are against same-sex
> >> marriage
> >> is amiss.
> >
> > It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
> > "majority" means nothing to you, eh?
>
> 80 percent is more than you can handle.
I don't care if it's 90% since what the christians whackos want is
unconstitutional it won't happen.
>
> >> What about every other group that disagrees with same-sex marriages?
> >
> > Small percentages compared to the whiney christian whackos...
>
> Again, you show your anti-Christian demeanor.
if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
>
> >> Methinks you are only an anti-Christian mal content.
> >
> > "Youthinks" not.
>
> Who needs to think with the words you spew?
I didn't realize the truth hurt you so much that you don't even think
about it...
Johnny
I am sure that wasn't the best shot in this matter at the federal level yet.
> Blathering on about it longer just makes you look sore.
In your opinion.
However, what you must realize is that failure to represent so many US
Citizens is what will reap bad tidings in the USA in the future if the
people are not respected well enough.
The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
Johnny
Why, bitch?
You are Pro-Choice.
According to you? gay pride and pro-choice advocate?
> Ask me
> how much I care about a bigot like you labelling other people as
> bigots?
I know you are bigoted.
You are bigoted against people.
You are bigoted against the law itself.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
>> >> >> > don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of
>> >> >> > Democrats
>> >> >> > either way.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 'Values voters' means nothing to you?
>> >> >
>> >> > Sure.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
>> >> >
>> >> > Am I? Would you care to show _where_ I said that?
>> >>
>> >> Well, it seems that the Dems in the Senate want to ignore their
>> >> constituent
>> >> base of values voters in this issue.
>> >
>> > You didn't show _where_ I said that...
>>
>> I wasn't trying to.
>> The evidence is clear enough.
>
> Ahhh, more "evidence" from Johnny. That's about as useful as an empty
> glass of water.
>
>> I am not concerned about your ideas.
>
> The quit replying, fucknut
>
>> I am more concerned that the people of the USA are represented by their
>> elected officials.
>
> And, elected officials aren't permitted to violate people's rights, no
> matter how much you whine at them about it.
So, why are the dems violating their constituents' right to representation?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> More reason to jump ship, I see.
>> >> >
>> >> > Care to show where I said that? No? I didn't think so.
>> >>
>> >> I do not need to show you.
>> >
>> > That's it, run away, pussy.
>>
>> LOL!
>> Your attack is going to be repelled much easier than you realize.
>
> If your history of defending what you say is any indication of how well
> you'll defend your statement this time, the odds are against you.
>
>>
>> >> I am showing you what the Dems in the Senate have done compared to
>> >> what
>> >> their constituents have done.
>> >> Taxation without representation
>> >
>> > Quit your fucking whining already.
>>
>> You first.
>>
>> > Elected representatives don't have
>> > the right to infringe on anyone's rights,
>>
>> So, they should stop infringing on their constituents rights to
>> representation.
>
> They're not. They have a right to not do what their constituents want
> as soon as what their constituents want is unconstitutional. When the
> fuck are you going to learn that, you fucking moron?
You do not know what Unconstitutional is sometimes.
>>
>> > no matter what their
>> > constituents say or how many say it.
>>
>> Sorry. You are outnumbered.
>> Pitch another bitch now?
>
> LOL!!! Let's see, the amendment was shot down.
Barely, bitch.
49-48 was almost a passing vote.
Where were the three votes that weren't cast?
>>
>> >>already started one revolution, and that is
>> >> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
>> >> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt to
>> >> break
>> >> free of it somehow.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
>> >> >> > of this at the polls.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
>> >>
>> >> Your assumption that it is only Christians who are against same-sex
>> >> marriage
>> >> is amiss.
>> >
>> > It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
>> > "majority" means nothing to you, eh?
>>
>> 80 percent is more than you can handle.
>
> I don't care if it's 90% since what the christians whackos want is
> unconstitutional it won't happen.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal marriage amendment.
I guess you think letting 18 year olds vote was unconstitutional, huh?
Or women's suffrage, etc.
Same type thing here.
When enough of the people want an Amendment that is what will happen.
Your watered-down bitch rant for same-sex marriages is not what the people
of the USA want.
>>
>> >> What about every other group that disagrees with same-sex marriages?
>> >
>> > Small percentages compared to the whiney christian whackos...
>>
>> Again, you show your anti-Christian demeanor.
>
> if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
If you act like a gay bitch then what do we know you as?
>>
>> >> Methinks you are only an anti-Christian mal content.
>> >
>> > "Youthinks" not.
>>
>> Who needs to think with the words you spew?
>
> I didn't realize the truth hurt you so much that you don't even think
> about it...
Nah. The truth in this matter is against you.
Pr0r3p
Your representatives are required to respect anyone who wishes to
infringe on the rights of others.
> The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
The USA has a constitution, and you fucking whackos have no right to
supress any group people or violate their rights via uncostitutional
amendments. Get over it and get used to it, you whiney piece of shit.
Pr0r3p
More bitch rants from Johnny.
Not just me...
>
> > Ask me
> > how much I care about a bigot like you labelling other people as
> > bigots?
>
> I know you are bigoted.
> You are bigoted against people.
> You are bigoted against the law itself.
blah blah blah.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Given the recent binge of lying the Repubs have been on, I
> >> >> >> > don't suspect this vote will mean much to the constituents of
> >> >> >> > Democrats
> >> >> >> > either way.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 'Values voters' means nothing to you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sure.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Are you saying that the dems are void of values voters?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Am I? Would you care to show _where_ I said that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, it seems that the Dems in the Senate want to ignore their
> >> >> constituent
> >> >> base of values voters in this issue.
> >> >
> >> > You didn't show _where_ I said that...
> >>
> >> I wasn't trying to.
> >> The evidence is clear enough.
> >
> > Ahhh, more "evidence" from Johnny. That's about as useful as an empty
> > glass of water.
> >
> >> I am not concerned about your ideas.
> >
> > The quit replying, fucknut
> >
> >> I am more concerned that the people of the USA are represented by their
> >> elected officials.
> >
> > And, elected officials aren't permitted to violate people's rights, no
> > matter how much you whine at them about it.
>
> So, why are the dems violating their constituents' right to representation?
They aren't, you stupid fuck. I'll say this again, they aren't
required to make your unconstitution demands law. Besides, it wasn't
just democrats that voted against the hateful amendment, 7 republicans
did also.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> More reason to jump ship, I see.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Care to show where I said that? No? I didn't think so.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do not need to show you.
> >> >
> >> > That's it, run away, pussy.
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >> Your attack is going to be repelled much easier than you realize.
> >
> > If your history of defending what you say is any indication of how well
> > you'll defend your statement this time, the odds are against you.
> >
> >>
> >> >> I am showing you what the Dems in the Senate have done compared to
> >> >> what
> >> >> their constituents have done.
> >> >> Taxation without representation
> >> >
> >> > Quit your fucking whining already.
> >>
> >> You first.
> >>
> >> > Elected representatives don't have
> >> > the right to infringe on anyone's rights,
> >>
> >> So, they should stop infringing on their constituents rights to
> >> representation.
> >
> > They're not. They have a right to not do what their constituents want
> > as soon as what their constituents want is unconstitutional. When the
> > fuck are you going to learn that, you fucking moron?
>
> You do not know what Unconstitutional is sometimes.
You think the First Amendment means two different things. Based on
this, your comments about the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of
anything is meaningless.
>
> >>
> >> > no matter what their
> >> > constituents say or how many say it.
> >>
> >> Sorry. You are outnumbered.
> >> Pitch another bitch now?
> >
> > LOL!!! Let's see, the amendment was shot down.
>
> Barely, bitch.
> 49-48 was almost a passing vote.
It needed 2/3 to move on, asshole. It wasn't as close you you'd like
to think.
> Where were the three votes that weren't cast?
How the fuck would I know? Why don't you ask the three senators that
didn't vote, asshole? It was 2 democrats and 1 republican. In the
grand scheme of things, I don't think their votes would have changed
the outcome any.
Even if they would have voted in support of the amendment, they still
weren't close to the 2/3 needed.
>
> >>
> >> >>already started one revolution, and that is
> >> >> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
> >> >> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt to
> >> >> break
> >> >> free of it somehow.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
> >> >> >> > of this at the polls.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your assumption that it is only Christians who are against same-sex
> >> >> marriage
> >> >> is amiss.
> >> >
> >> > It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
> >> > "majority" means nothing to you, eh?
> >>
> >> 80 percent is more than you can handle.
> >
> > I don't care if it's 90% since what the christians whackos want is
> > unconstitutional it won't happen.
>
> There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal marriage amendment.
Unless the amendment itself is unconstitutional.
> I guess you think letting 18 year olds vote was unconstitutional, huh?
Nope, it violated no one's rights.
> Or women's suffrage, etc.
> Same type thing here.
It violated no one's rights either...
> When enough of the people want an Amendment that is what will happen.
> Your watered-down bitch rant for same-sex marriages is not what the people
> of the USA want.
Polls indicate that the majority of americans oppose amending the
constitution on this issue. You'll deny it of course since the facts
don't support what you're saying.
>
> >>
> >> >> What about every other group that disagrees with same-sex marriages?
> >> >
> >> > Small percentages compared to the whiney christian whackos...
> >>
> >> Again, you show your anti-Christian demeanor.
> >
> > if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
>
> If you act like a gay bitch then what do we know you as?
When did you say your boyfriend was coming home?
Johnny
And, it dictates representative rule.
> and you fucking whackos have no right to
> supress any group people or violate their rights via uncostitutional
> amendments.
Take that pill, idiot.
You gay whackos have no right to violate other persons' rights in the USA,
hypocrite.
> Get over it and get used to it, you whiney piece of shit.
Listen, bitchboy.
You are the whining brokeback fool.
You stop bitching.
Johnny
Bullshit, idiot.
> I'll say this again, they aren't
> required to make your unconstitution demands law.
Let them lose then.
It won't bother me.
When they fail to represent their constiuents it is time for them to lose.
> Besides, it wasn't
> just democrats that voted against the hateful amendment, 7 republicans
> did also.
Which means that 41 democrats, out of how many democrats, voted againt it?
Idiot.
I already know that gays are bitching, complaining fools who become outraged
at any law that goes against their unrepentant gayness.
Sorry, bitchboy, but you are going to lose this battle.
I will not allow you to form policy in the USA in this issue.
I know that.
> It wasn't as close you you'd like
> to think.
Bullshit.
What is the real case is that it is the only vote that there has been that
wasn't dramatically against gay marriages.
Idiot. Loser. Wimp. Bitch.
>> Where were the three votes that weren't cast?
>
> How the fuck would I know? Why don't you ask the three senators that
> didn't vote, asshole? It was 2 democrats and 1 republican. In the
> grand scheme of things, I don't think their votes would have changed
> the outcome any.
It could been 50-50 then.
And, what if they woulda voted against it and wanted to preserve their
constituents' vote for re-election?
LOL!
I would vote those 3 outa office for failing to do their job.
Derelict in their duties is grounds for dismissal.
BYE BYE BITCHBOY!
> Even if they would have voted in support of the amendment, they still
> weren't close to the 2/3 needed.
So what?
They were derelict, negligent in their duties as Unoted States Senators.
Bye, bye bitches and cowards and venomous serpents.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>already started one revolution, and that is
>> >> >> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
>> >> >> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> break
>> >> >> free of it somehow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
>> >> >> >> > of this at the polls.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your assumption that it is only Christians who are against same-sex
>> >> >> marriage
>> >> >> is amiss.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
>> >> > "majority" means nothing to you, eh?
>> >>
>> >> 80 percent is more than you can handle.
>> >
>> > I don't care if it's 90% since what the christians whackos want is
>> > unconstitutional it won't happen.
>>
>> There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal marriage amendment.
>
> Unless the amendment itself is unconstitutional.
You have no power to call a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional once
it is ratified.
>> I guess you think letting 18 year olds vote was unconstitutional, huh?
>
> Nope, it violated no one's rights.
The federal marriage amendment train is not derailed.
There are other ways to defeat gay marriage if necessary.
>> Or women's suffrage, etc.
>> Same type thing here.
>
> It violated no one's rights either...
So?
Once this gay marriage issue is defeated in law, you can stop bitching.
You can stop bitching now and spare the entire USA much trouble.
>> When enough of the people want an Amendment that is what will happen.
>> Your watered-down bitch rant for same-sex marriages is not what the
>> people
>> of the USA want.
>
> Polls indicate that the majority of americans oppose amending the
> constitution on this issue.
Bullshit.
Those are gay-biased polls, idiot.
> You'll deny it of course since the facts
> don't support what you're saying.
Of course I will deny that biased polls are true when I know they contradict
the truth with regard to what the American public wants.
Pr0r3p
What rights are homosexuals trying to violate, asshole?
Stand by for a Johnny meltdown as he refuses to answer that question.
>
> > Get over it and get used to it, you whiney piece of shit.
>
> Listen, bitchboy.
> You are the whining brokeback fool.
> You stop bitching.
LOL!!! Looks like the meltdown has begun already.
Pr0r3p
blah blah blah. More whining from the miserable cunt who thinks all
elected represetatives should give in to his unconstitutional demands.
>
> > I'll say this again, they aren't
> > required to make your unconstitution demands law.
>
> Let them lose then.
> It won't bother me.
> When they fail to represent their constiuents it is time for them to lose.
You still can't get past the fact that your demands were
unconstitutional. You still think elected representatives are to give
in to your demands, irregardless of the fact that they are
unconstitutional. Go fuck youself, you whiney cunt.
>
> > Besides, it wasn't
> > just democrats that voted against the hateful amendment, 7 republicans
> > did also.
>
> Which means that 41 democrats, out of how many democrats, voted againt it?
> Idiot.
Good for them..
> I already know that gays are bitching, complaining fools who become outraged
> at any law that goes against their unrepentant gayness.
Look at you bitching about gays wanting equal treatment. That makes
you a complaining fool.
> Sorry, bitchboy, but you are going to lose this battle.
> I will not allow you to form policy in the USA in this issue.
>
You have no control over me, you fucking controlfreak.
No response Johnny? LOL!!!
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > no matter what their
> >> >> > constituents say or how many say it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry. You are outnumbered.
> >> >> Pitch another bitch now?
> >> >
> >> > LOL!!! Let's see, the amendment was shot down.
> >>
> >> Barely, bitch.
> >> 49-48 was almost a passing vote.
> >
> > It needed 2/3 to move on, asshole.
>
> I know that.
Obviously not, since you claimed that 49-48 was almost a passing vote.
>
> > It wasn't as close you you'd like
> > to think.
>
> Bullshit.
> What is the real case is that it is the only vote that there has been that
> wasn't dramatically against gay marriages.
> Idiot. Loser. Wimp. Bitch.
>
Got your panties in a knot? LOL!!!
> >> Where were the three votes that weren't cast?
> >
> > How the fuck would I know? Why don't you ask the three senators that
> > didn't vote, asshole? It was 2 democrats and 1 republican. In the
> > grand scheme of things, I don't think their votes would have changed
> > the outcome any.
>
> It could been 50-50 then.
So what, it needed 2/3 to move on...
> And, what if they woulda voted against it and wanted to preserve their
> constituents' vote for re-election?
Johnny thinks that elected representatives should only be interested in
preserving their bid for re-election and to hell with abiding by the
constitution. But, we already knew he really isn't interested in
protecting other people's rights. He's only interested in his own.
> LOL!
> I would vote those 3 outa office for failing to do their job.
> Derelict in their duties is grounds for dismissal.
And, your insanity is grounds for commital.
> BYE BYE BITCHBOY!
>
> > Even if they would have voted in support of the amendment, they still
> > weren't close to the 2/3 needed.
>
> So what?
> They were derelict, negligent in their duties as Unoted States Senators.
They were defending the constitution. Something you obviously have a
problem with.
> Bye, bye bitches and cowards and venomous serpents.
We'll see.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>already started one revolution, and that is
> >> >> >> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
> >> >> >> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> break
> >> >> >> free of it somehow.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
> >> >> >> >> > of this at the polls.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your assumption that it is only Christians who are against same-sex
> >> >> >> marriage
> >> >> >> is amiss.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
> >> >> > "majority" means nothing to you, eh?
> >> >>
> >> >> 80 percent is more than you can handle.
> >> >
> >> > I don't care if it's 90% since what the christians whackos want is
> >> > unconstitutional it won't happen.
> >>
> >> There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal marriage amendment.
> >
> > Unless the amendment itself is unconstitutional.
>
> You have no power to call a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional once
> it is ratified.
>
Was it ratified? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> I guess you think letting 18 year olds vote was unconstitutional, huh?
> >
> > Nope, it violated no one's rights.
>
> The federal marriage amendment train is not derailed.
> There are other ways to defeat gay marriage if necessary.
Are you and your ilk going to start bombing buildings, you terrorist?
>
> >> Or women's suffrage, etc.
> >> Same type thing here.
> >
> > It violated no one's rights either...
>
> So?
I should have known that you aren't interested in whether something
violates someone's rights or not.
> Once this gay marriage issue is defeated in law, you can stop bitching.
> You can stop bitching now and spare the entire USA much trouble.
Go fuck yourself. You don't tell me what to do.
>
> >> When enough of the people want an Amendment that is what will happen.
> >> Your watered-down bitch rant for same-sex marriages is not what the
> >> people
> >> of the USA want.
> >
> > Polls indicate that the majority of americans oppose amending the
> > constitution on this issue.
>
> Bullshit.
> Those are gay-biased polls, idiot.
Same old Johnny Excuses (tm)....
Of course, Johnny will be happy to show that the polls are biased,
NOT!!!
>
> > You'll deny it of course since the facts
> > don't support what you're saying.
>
> Of course I will deny that biased polls are true when I know they contradict
> the truth with regard to what the American public wants.
Well, I guess you have to do whatever makes it better in your little
world, Johnny...
Johnny
Free Speech rights, Free Exercise of Religion rights.
Why are you gays so angry?
> Stand by for a Johnny meltdown as he refuses to answer that question.
LOL!
Meltdown seems to be what you are experiencing.
Got any more bitches to pitch?
>>
>> > Get over it and get used to it, you whiney piece of shit.
>>
>> Listen, bitchboy.
>> You are the whining brokeback fool.
>> You stop bitching.
>
> LOL!!! Looks like the meltdown has begun already.
In your case, that occurred long ago.
When will you stop?
Strife767
I'm just going with the numbers--support for same-sex marriage is
constantly, albeit gradually, rising. Any attempt to pass this amendment
again in the future will be a time when an even larger percent of people in
general are accepting of same-sex marriage than there was today.
>
>> Blathering on about it longer just makes you look sore.
>
>In your opinion.
>However, what you must realize is that failure to represent so many US
>Citizens is what will reap bad tidings in the USA in the future if the
>people are not respected well enough.
Uh, heterosexuals are already represented when it comes to this. How can you
talk about not being respected while disrespectfully denying a group of
people a right that another group has?
>The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
Nor was it formed for "straights" to make the rules.
IIRC, it was formed to give equal rights to everyone.
Strife767
Uh, care to explain how same-sex marriage would "violate other persons'
rights in the USA?"
Strife767
Who cares? Keep off-topic abortion talk out of alt.politics.homosexuality.
Nonsense. How can one be bigoted against a group he is a part of ("people")?
Read a dictionary. :P
>You are bigoted against the law itself.
Also grammatically nonsensical.
Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Which is why the amendment got a unanimous Senate vote.
Oh, wait--you couldn't even get 60. :P
>
>>>
>>> >> What about every other group that disagrees with same-sex marriages?
>>> >
>>> > Small percentages compared to the whiney christian whackos...
>>>
>>> Again, you show your anti-Christian demeanor.
>>
>> if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
>
>If you act like a gay bitch then what do we know you as?
lol at ad hom.
Strife767
lol, how arrogant.
And arguably the most important one to date. You lost 'the big one.' Suck it
up, crybaby.
>Idiot. Loser. Wimp. Bitch.
Wahwahwah (by the way, it was your side that lost in that vote, so "Loser"
isn't quite accurate :) )
>
>>> Where were the three votes that weren't cast?
>>
>> How the fuck would I know? Why don't you ask the three senators that
>> didn't vote, asshole? It was 2 democrats and 1 republican. In the
>> grand scheme of things, I don't think their votes would have changed
>> the outcome any.
>
>It could been 50-50 then.
Still a full 10 votes away from making it past the Senate.
>And, what if they woulda voted against it and wanted to preserve their
>constituents' vote for re-election?
>LOL!
>I would vote those 3 outa office for failing to do their job.
>Derelict in their duties is grounds for dismissal.
>BYE BYE BITCHBOY!
>
>> Even if they would have voted in support of the amendment, they still
>> weren't close to the 2/3 needed.
>
>So what?
So asking about the three missing votes is completely irrelevant. :P
>They were derelict, negligent in their duties as Unoted States Senators.
You're not above schoolyard name-calling when it comes to _anyone_ who
doesn't agree with you, huh? (lol "Unoted States")
>Bye, bye bitches and cowards and venomous serpents.
Dream on.
>
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> >>already started one revolution, and that is
>>> >> >> how the USA became an independent nation. If the people want to be
>>> >> >> independent of unrepresentative government then they will attempt
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> break
>>> >> >> free of it somehow.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> > Only the deeply rooted christan whackos will make an issue
>>> >> >> >> > of this at the polls.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Such idiocy does very little to help your cause.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Thanks for proving my point, CHRISTIAN WHACKO.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Your assumption that it is only Christians who are against same-sex
>>> >> >> marriage
>>> >> >> is amiss.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It's the largest group out there bitching about it. Suddenly
>>> >> > "majority" means nothing to you, eh?
>>> >>
>>> >> 80 percent is more than you can handle.
>>> >
>>> > I don't care if it's 90% since what the christians whackos want is
>>> > unconstitutional it won't happen.
>>>
>>> There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal marriage amendment.
>>
>> Unless the amendment itself is unconstitutional.
>
>You have no power to call a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional once
>it is ratified.
This of course, doesn't matter because it was thrown out long before getting
ratified.
>
>>> I guess you think letting 18 year olds vote was unconstitutional, huh?
>>
>> Nope, it violated no one's rights.
>
>The federal marriage amendment train is not derailed.
It is akin to a guy who tried to knock down a brick wall. You failed the
first time, and now you're bruised from charging so recklessly into it. What
makes you think that you won't just injure yourself again if you charge once
more?
>There are other ways to defeat gay marriage if necessary.
lol, such as?
>
>>> Or women's suffrage, etc.
>>> Same type thing here.
>>
>> It violated no one's rights either...
>
>So?
>Once this gay marriage issue is defeated in law, you can stop bitching.
And then you can wake up from your bigoted dreams. :P
>You can stop bitching now and spare the entire USA much trouble.
>
>>> When enough of the people want an Amendment that is what will happen.
>>> Your watered-down bitch rant for same-sex marriages is not what the
>>> people
>>> of the USA want.
>>
>> Polls indicate that the majority of americans oppose amending the
>> constitution on this issue.
>
>Bullshit.
>Those are gay-biased polls, idiot.
lol, easy to accuse, but can you prove that?
>
>> You'll deny it of course since the facts
>> don't support what you're saying.
>
>Of course I will deny that biased polls are true
Can you prove the bias?
>when I know they contradict
>the truth with regard to what the American public wants.
lol, obviously someone doesn't get out often. If you crawled out of your
hole and lived in the real world for a while, those numbers would not
surprise you so much that you would immediately declare them biased/invalid.
Johnny
Allowing persons to obtain unequal treatment is illegal in light of the 14th
Amendment.
While you are caught up and bitching that gays are not allowed to marry and
that denies them equal protection, you are only showing me that you are a
complaining, unconstitutional type who seeks to transgress the rights of
single persons in the USA. Even when persons are married in the USA they are
still individuals.
Marriage is illegally used already to award unequal protections to persons
in the USA, and the real issue here is that citizens are being discriminated
for and against on the basis of marital status.
Johnny
You are still bithing to me.
You are not allowing celibate persons or heterosexual persons who do not
marry equal protections.
The 14th Amendment does not allow unequal protections or unequal privileges
based on marital status.
Understand yet?
>>The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
>
> Nor was it formed for "straights" to make the rules.
Who cares?
The 14th Amendment is what is supposed to rule in this matter, correct?
> IIRC, it was formed to give equal rights to everyone.
So, work to eliminate the unequal protections and unequal privileges in law
that are in existence on the basis of marital status and the problem is
solved.
Strife767
Got any examples? I've never heard of that happening.
>Free Exercise of Religion rights.
You can be or practice whatever religion you want, but trying to make the
tenets of your religion into everyone's law is not covered in those rights.
Sorry, you can't make everyone follow the rules of your specific imaginary
friend.
Strife767
1) How?
2) That doesn't answer my question.
>While you are caught up and bitching that gays are not allowed to marry and
>that denies them equal protection, you are only showing me that you are a
>complaining, unconstitutional type who seeks to transgress the rights of
>single persons in the USA.
Again: which rights of single persons in the USA are transgressed, and how?
>Even when persons are married in the USA they are
>still individuals.
Yeah, so?
>Marriage is illegally used already to award unequal protections to persons
>in the USA
You're saying that some married couples get protections that other married
couples don't?
>and the real issue here is that citizens are being discriminated
>for and against on the basis of marital status.
Who's being discriminated against based on whether or not he/she is married?
Strife767
I can "bith" all I want. :P
>You are not allowing celibate persons or heterosexual persons who do not
>marry equal protections.
So your argument would be that single people should have the same
protections that married people do. That has nothing to do with same-sex
marriage at _all_.
>The 14th Amendment does not allow unequal protections or unequal privileges
>based on marital status.
>Understand yet?
I know what you're talking about, but maybe you'd like to explain what
same-sex marriage has to do with it.
>
>>>The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
>>
>> Nor was it formed for "straights" to make the rules.
>
>Who cares?
>The 14th Amendment is what is supposed to rule in this matter, correct?
Which is exactly why people should be allowed to choose marriage partners of
whatever gender they want.
>> IIRC, it was formed to give equal rights to everyone.
>
>So, work to eliminate the unequal protections and unequal privileges in law
>that are in existence on the basis of marital status and the problem is
>solved.
Your argument is single vs. married, not same-sex married vs. opposite-sex
married. What do same-sex marriages have to do with your argument?
Pr0r3p
I know of no one attempting to do this, gay or not. Care to cite
specific examples?
No One
> Andrealphus wrote:
> > In News 1149822842.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,, bob&carole
> > at bobandc...@hotmail.com, typed this:
> >
> > > Dave wrote:
> > >> Congratulations to the Senate for allowing fairness to prevail
> > >> over a small minded attempt to take away individual freedom
> > >> without legitimate purpose.
> > >
> > > They will never marry here, the local ministers and the JOTP refuse to
> > > perform the ceremony
> >
> > The ministers are irrelevant, and the JOTP can be fired and replaced for not
> > doing their jobs.
>
> Even when the Mayor APPROVES? :-)
Yes, even if the mayor approves (in the sense of sharing the same
views as the JOTP)! The influence the mayor has depends on how a
particular city's government is set up, but even if a mayor
disapproves of same-sex marriages, he has a very good reason for
insisting that the law be followed - failure to do that would be
grounds for a lawsuit that could cost the city a bundle. While many
of the voters may not care about same-sex marriages, losing a million
dollars of taxpayer money in an easily prevented lawsuit will get the
voters' attention.
One school district in our area learned the hard way. The staff
allowed a gay kid to be harassed unmercifully, to the point where he
could not safely walk down the halls and had to hide before leaving
school to avoid a gang that wanted to beat him, with the staff more or
less blaming the victim. He sued and won a lot of money. Now the
school has training programs for its staff to avoid a repeat. Maybe
the staff's attitude towards gay students hasn't actually changed, but
they sure know the value of a dollar and how the voters will react to
seeing their tax dollars going to settlements rather than being
used to educate their children.
Pr0r3p
He'll claim that if you don't, then you are violating his free exercise
of religion rights. By the way, Johnny claims that free exercise of
religion means churches are tax exempt. But now, we see him claiming
it to mean somthing else. What a fucking moron.
Katie Lynn
Johnny wrote:
We won.
Get over it
--
Dr. Kathleen F. Lynn
Chief Medical Officer- ICA-1916
One of the Lesbian Immortals
We Never Die
"Give *Us* the future, we've had enough of your past. Give us back our country,
to live in , to grow in, to love."
Michael Collins, A Rebel with a Cause
tulle
rbw...@juno.com wrote:
> Andrealphus wrote:
> > In News 1149734979.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
> > rbw...@juno.com at rbw...@juno.com, typed this:
> >
> > > Andrealphus wrote:
> > >> In News 1149725861....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,,
> > >> rbw...@juno.com at rbw...@juno.com, typed this:
> > >>
> > >>> Strife767 wrote:
> > >>>> On 7 Jun 2006 15:28:14 -0700, rbw...@juno.com wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> God was the one who said not to commit
> > >>>>> adultery and not to kill. Are you going to try to destroy God?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ROFL, you can't destroy what isn't there.
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, now, that is a bold statement. So what about Jesus Christ?
> > >>
> > >> What about him?
> > > Well, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ is going to return and
> > > judge the earth.
> >
> > According to Aesop's Fables, the fox will jump for the grapes, fail, and
> > then declare that the grapes were probably sour anyways. So what? One
> > fable is as good as the other I suppose.
> >
> >
> > > I think that you might want to tell him your ideas.
> > > They don't mean much to me.
> >
> > I think you'd be better off telling him the lies you've been telling us.
> > Your imaginary diety will be far more interested in preparing a special
> > place in hell for you.
>
> Well, I will tell him what I told you. What else would I do?
> Everyone will be rewarded for his own works. I was about the only one
> who told you people the truth.
> Robert B. Winn
I thought your Christian God was all knowing/all seeing etc. You got to
tell him what's going on? He isn't nearly as powerful as I thought.
Maybe we should start calling the God of Abraham, Tommy.
tulle
Pr0r3p
Johnny claims to use the Constitution to find the definition of words.
That's quite an insight into his mental deficiencies.
<snip>
Johnny
You forgot about the 14th Amendment?
Why are you lobbying for unequal treatment via marriage rights?
>>Even when persons are married in the USA they are
>>still individuals.
>
> Yeah, so?
So, treating persons differently when they are married is against the 14th
Amendment.
>>Marriage is illegally used already to award unequal protections to persons
>>in the USA
>
> You're saying that some married couples get protections that other married
> couples don't?
No. The Constitution is not written for couples' rights, idiot.
The Constitution is for individual rights.
When will you learn that the Constitution is written for units of one,
rather than for gang mentality criminals?
>>and the real issue here is that citizens are being discriminated
>>for and against on the basis of marital status.
>
> Who's being discriminated against based on whether or not he/she is
> married?
Currently people are discriminated for and against based on their marital
status.
Would you be for same-sex marriage as much if marriage did not benefit you
any more than you are currently benefited?
I am quite sure that you wouldn't.
Johnny
"Katie Lynn" <KLy...@StUltansHosp.ie> wrote in message
news:4489B16F...@StUltansHosp.ie...
You didn't win.
No State has approved of same-sex marriage by a vote of its people.
And, please do not bitch about wanting to marry another female.
Your pity party is disgusting.
Johnny
As much as possible.
> That has nothing to do with same-sex
> marriage at _all_.
But, it does have much to do with the current agenda to allow same-sex
marriage.
Same-sex marriage would not bother me as much if there were no unequal
protections awarded via marriage.
Currently, allowing same-sex marriage would only exacerbate the problem of
unequal treatment of single persons.
Dictating a rule that states that persons must become married to obtain
equal protections is quite in violation of the 14th Amendment, and it
transgresses a persons' election not to marry by relegating them to lower
status against their personal choice.
>>The 14th Amendment does not allow unequal protections or unequal
>>privileges
>>based on marital status.
>>Understand yet?
>
> I know what you're talking about, but maybe you'd like to explain what
> same-sex marriage has to do with it.
Same-sex marriage would further disrespect single persons.
>>
>>>>The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
>>>
>>> Nor was it formed for "straights" to make the rules.
>>
>>Who cares?
>>The 14th Amendment is what is supposed to rule in this matter, correct?
>
> Which is exactly why people should be allowed to choose marriage partners
> of
> whatever gender they want.
Yet, same-sex marriage is not equal to hetersexual marriage.
The whole formed by the component parts are unequal.
I would prefer that individuals would be treated as individuals, whether
they are married or not.
>>> IIRC, it was formed to give equal rights to everyone.
>>
>>So, work to eliminate the unequal protections and unequal privileges in
>>law
>>that are in existence on the basis of marital status and the problem is
>>solved.
>
> Your argument is single vs. married, not same-sex married vs. opposite-sex
> married. What do same-sex marriages have to do with your argument?
Same-sex marriage further violates the 14th Amendment's provisions.
Pr0r3p
Johnny wrote:
>
> No. The Constitution is not written for couples' rights, idiot.
> The Constitution is for individual rights.
> When will you learn that the Constitution is written for units of one,
The constitution was written to limit the power of government over the
people. But, you keep believing in whatever it takes to make you feel
better in your little world.
<snip>
Strife767
Hey dipshit, over here. Dodging my questions?
>>
>>>While you are caught up and bitching that gays are not allowed to marry
>>>and
>>>that denies them equal protection, you are only showing me that you are a
>>>complaining, unconstitutional type who seeks to transgress the rights of
>>>single persons in the USA.
>>
>> Again: which rights of single persons in the USA are transgressed, and
>> how?
>
>You forgot about the 14th Amendment?
Your argument is that married couples get rights that single people don't,
and that that is a violation of the 14th Amendment. So why aren't you
fighting hetero marriage, opting instead to single out homo marriage?
>Why are you lobbying for unequal treatment via marriage rights?
Stop avoiding my questions.
>
>>>Even when persons are married in the USA they are
>>>still individuals.
>>
>> Yeah, so?
>
>So, treating persons differently when they are married is against the 14th
>Amendment.
Then why are you singling out same-sex marriage instead of being against all
marriage?
>
>>>Marriage is illegally used already to award unequal protections to persons
>>>in the USA
>>
>> You're saying that some married couples get protections that other married
>> couples don't?
>
>No. The Constitution is not written for couples' rights, idiot.
>The Constitution is for individual rights.
>When will you learn that the Constitution is written for units of one,
>rather than for gang mentality criminals?
I still fail to see what part of your argument is against same-sex marriage
without also being against opposite-sex marriage. If you're opposed to all
marriage, _say_ so. If you're only opposed to same-sex marriage, explain how
your argument applies _only_ to same-sex marriage but not opposite-sex
marriage.
>
>>>and the real issue here is that citizens are being discriminated
>>>for and against on the basis of marital status.
>>
>> Who's being discriminated against based on whether or not he/she is
>> married?
>
>Currently people are discriminated for and against based on their marital
>status.
>Would you be for same-sex marriage as much if marriage did not benefit you
>any more than you are currently benefited?
You are a hypocrite if you do not also apply this argument/reasoning to
hetero singles--tell me why hetero single are immune from your 'argument.'
Strife767
What agenda?
>Same-sex marriage would not bother me as much if there were no unequal
>protections awarded via marriage.
Then why doesn't opposite-sex marriage bother you?
>Currently, allowing same-sex marriage would only exacerbate the problem of
>unequal treatment of single persons.
And why isn't awarding the same treatment to hetero singles who get married
a problem?
>Dictating a rule that states that persons must become married to obtain
>equal protections is quite in violation of the 14th Amendment, and it
>transgresses a persons' election not to marry by relegating them to lower
>status against their personal choice.
This argument isn't exclusive to same-sex marriage.
>
>>>The 14th Amendment does not allow unequal protections or unequal
>>>privileges
>>>based on marital status.
>>>Understand yet?
>>
>> I know what you're talking about, but maybe you'd like to explain what
>> same-sex marriage has to do with it.
>
>Same-sex marriage would further disrespect single persons.
How moreso than opposite-sex marriage disrespects single persons?
>
>>>
>>>>>The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
>>>>
>>>> Nor was it formed for "straights" to make the rules.
>>>
>>>Who cares?
>>>The 14th Amendment is what is supposed to rule in this matter, correct?
>>
>> Which is exactly why people should be allowed to choose marriage partners
>> of
>> whatever gender they want.
>
>Yet, same-sex marriage is not equal to hetersexual marriage.
How is it lesser?
>The whole formed by the component parts are unequal.
How so?
>I would prefer that individuals would be treated as individuals, whether
>they are married or not.
This argument isn't exclusive to same-sex marriage.
>Same-sex marriage further violates the 14th Amendment's provisions.
By your logic, so does opposite-sex marriage.
Mark Sebree
Especially given that the Constitution does not define the words that
he says it does. He is seeing things that are not there, which is why
he cannot show them to anyone.
Mark Sebree
Boy Toy
message <1149874555....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
It's all about "Get into Heaven free points" and "frequent martyr
miles."
"You guys don't seem to understand what motivates me." He [Fred
Phelps] chuckles. As usual, a Bible verse serves as his answer.
"Blessed are ye when men shall hate you and revile you and say all
manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be
exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven." ... "If they
weren't doing that, how am I going to get all that 'great is your
reward in heaven'?"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm
Johnny
>
> Johnny wrote:
>>
>> No. The Constitution is not written for couples' rights, idiot.
>> The Constitution is for individual rights.
>> When will you learn that the Constitution is written for units of one,
>
> The constitution was written to limit the power of government over the
> people.
The Constitution doesn't say that, idiot.
Read it and believe it, rather than acting like a criminal who thinks it
doesn't apply to him.
> But, you keep believing in whatever it takes to make you feel
> better in your little world.
I know what it means.
You seem not to want to honor it.
Johnny
I am opposed to unequal treatment.
Read the 14th Amendment.
Next question?
>>
>>>>and the real issue here is that citizens are being discriminated
>>>>for and against on the basis of marital status.
>>>
>>> Who's being discriminated against based on whether or not he/she is
>>> married?
>>
>>Currently people are discriminated for and against based on their marital
>>status.
>>Would you be for same-sex marriage as much if marriage did not benefit you
>>any more than you are currently benefited?
>
> You are a hypocrite if you do not also apply this argument/reasoning to
> hetero singles--tell me why hetero single are immune from your 'argument.'
How am I lobbying for singles to be treated differently from any other
person in the USA?
Johnny
Methinks you assume things that the Constitution does not say or that I did
not say.
I never said that hetero marriage does not disrespect single persons.
If we want to form policy that does not violate the 14th Amendment then we
should try to do that.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor was it formed for "straights" to make the rules.
>>>>
>>>>Who cares?
>>>>The 14th Amendment is what is supposed to rule in this matter, correct?
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why people should be allowed to choose marriage
>>> partners
>>> of
>>> whatever gender they want.
>>
>>Yet, same-sex marriage is not equal to hetersexual marriage.
>
> How is it lesser?
Assumption on your part?
Where did I say it was lesser?
>>The whole formed by the component parts are unequal.
>
> How so?
The parts that form the couple are not equivalent in whole.
There are differences.
>>I would prefer that individuals would be treated as individuals, whether
>>they are married or not.
>
> This argument isn't exclusive to same-sex marriage.
Yes. I am aware of that.
>>Same-sex marriage further violates the 14th Amendment's provisions.
>
> By your logic, so does opposite-sex marriage.
I know.
Yet, I am not trying to further disrupt society by adding to the
inequalities amongst citizens.
Pr0r3p
Johnny wrote:
> "Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1149880393.2...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Johnny wrote:
> >>
> >> No. The Constitution is not written for couples' rights, idiot.
> >> The Constitution is for individual rights.
> >> When will you learn that the Constitution is written for units of one,
> >
> > The constitution was written to limit the power of government over the
> > people.
>
> The Constitution doesn't say that, idiot.
People with more education and experience in these matter say you're
wrong.
> Read it and believe it
You think the First Amendment means two different things, why should I
believe you understand it?
>, rather than acting like a criminal who thinks it
> doesn't apply to him.
It implicitly gives people certian rights by limiting the government's
power, I know who and what it applies too. How about you read it
rather than acting like a know-it-all asshole who thinks he's a
constitutional guru? How many meanings does that First Amendment have
again? Oh, according to you, at least 2.
> > But, you keep believing in whatever it takes to make you feel
> > better in your little world.
>
> I know what it means.
> You seem not to want to honor it.
You just keep believing in whatever it takes to make you feel better in
your little world
Strife767
In other words, you're admitting to be against marriage providing any
additional rights to people. Therefore, your argument has to do with the
fact that you think all additional rights a couple receives after getting
married are unconstitutional. Such an argument doesn't belong in this
thread, or anywhere in APH because it has nothing to do with same-sex
marriage specifically.
>
>>>
>>>>>and the real issue here is that citizens are being discriminated
>>>>>for and against on the basis of marital status.
>>>>
>>>> Who's being discriminated against based on whether or not he/she is
>>>> married?
>>>
>>>Currently people are discriminated for and against based on their marital
>>>status.
>>>Would you be for same-sex marriage as much if marriage did not benefit you
>>>any more than you are currently benefited?
>>
>> You are a hypocrite if you do not also apply this argument/reasoning to
>> hetero singles--tell me why hetero singles are immune from your 'argument.'
>
>How am I lobbying for singles to be treated differently from any other
>person in the USA?
I said hetero singles specifically, not just 'singles.'
Strife767
There, was that so hard?
Now kindly take your argument elsewhere, it's off-topic both in this thread
and in this newsgroup, as it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage
exclusively.
>If we want to form policy that does not violate the 14th Amendment then we
>should try to do that.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The USA was not formed for gays to make the rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor was it formed for "straights" to make the rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who cares?
>>>>>The 14th Amendment is what is supposed to rule in this matter, correct?
>>>>
>>>> Which is exactly why people should be allowed to choose marriage
>>>> partners
>>>> of
>>>> whatever gender they want.
>>>
>>>Yet, same-sex marriage is not equal to hetersexual marriage.
>>
>> How is it lesser?
>
>Assumption on your part?
>Where did I say it was lesser?
You're saying it's not equal. That would mean it's either lesser or greater,
unless you're simply saying that it's not the same, at which point I would
ask how it isn't, other than the trivial, and obvious, matter of 'well,
they're both men/women.'
>
>>>The whole formed by the component parts are unequal.
>>
>> How so?
>
>The parts that form the couple are not equivalent in whole.
>There are differences.
What differences are there, other than the trivial/obvious matter of gender?
>
>>>I would prefer that individuals would be treated as individuals, whether
>>>they are married or not.
>>
>> This argument isn't exclusive to same-sex marriage.
>
>Yes. I am aware of that.
Then it's off-topic both in this thread and in this newsgroup.
>
>>>Same-sex marriage further violates the 14th Amendment's provisions.
>>
>> By your logic, so does opposite-sex marriage.
>
>I know.
>Yet, I am not trying to further disrupt society by adding to the
>inequalities amongst citizens.
"All marriage is unfair but since heterosexuals can marry already, I'm not
going to bother them but we cannot allow any other groups to marry."
This is what I'm interpreting. What kind of a weak mentality is that?
rbw...@juno.com
BOB wrote:
> rbw...@juno.com wrote in news:1149816001.679682.190370
> @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> >> I'll wager it's much better than yours, Joanny, and I certainly don't
> >> credit my good fortune to any mythical "god" but rather to my own
> >> intiative, actions and hard work.
> >
> > What about your spelling? You answer someone named Johnny and spell
> > his name Joanny. Does that seem right to you?
> > Robert B. Winn
> >
> >
> Have a trusted friend explain it to you, Looney Toon, preferably someone
> who isn't a nutcase like you. That leaves Joanny out.
Why don't you explain it to Johnny when he returns to answer one of
your posts?
Robert B. Winn
rbw...@juno.com
Mark Sebree wrote:
> bob&carole wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> > > Congratulations to the Senate for allowing fairness to prevail
> > > over a small minded attempt to take away individual freedom
> > > without legitimate purpose.
> >
> > They will never marry here, the local ministers and the JOTP refuse to
> > perform the ceremony
>
> cannot legally refuse to perform the marriage. He or she is a
> representative and employee of the local and state government, and
> therefore is required to treat everyone equally. That means that if
> the marriage license if valid, the Justice of the Peace has no choice
> in the matter.
>
> The local clergy, however, because of Freedom of Religion, does have a
> choice. However, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that there
> are some clergy local to you that will perform same sex marriages. And
> that includes clergy that do not have any formal church. For example,
> a local Wiccan Priest and Priestess could perform the ceremony, as long
> as they are licensed to do so. And your local Universal Unitarian
> church is likely to already be doing commitment ceremonies.
>
> You cannot say what your local clergy will and will not do, because
> each of them will make that decision for themselves, according to THEIR
> beliefs. Your opinions in the matter are not needed.
>
> Mark Sebree
A local justice of the peace can legally refuse to marry two
homosexuals, regardless of what people in the legislature do.
Robert B. Winn
Lars Eighner
<1149887266....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented rbw...@juno.com
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
If they want to go to jail for violating a Writ of Mandamus. Courts have
broad powers to force public official to perform their duty.
--
Lars Eighner http://larseighner.com/ http:/myspace.com/larseighner
The best way to support the troops right now
is to take them out of hazard's way. -- U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Odem (Ret.)
rbw...@juno.com
Eric Brze wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2006 21:42:04 -0700, rbw...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >>
> >> No need.
> >
> >Why does not killing other people seem frightening to you?
> >Robert B. Winn
>
> Because it turned on its head by killing people who collected sticks
> on the Sabbath day.
The Law of Moses is no longer in effect. It was fulfilled on the day
Jesus Christ was born. Christians live under the Law of Christ, which
only has two commandments, Love the Lord thy God, Love thy neighbor
as thyself.
So explain again why not killing other people is so frightening to you.
Robert B. Winn