Mrs. Betty Bowers on Mormons - Civil rights by popular vote
John Manning
America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
rights by popular vote.
Betty asks: "Are the Mormons a minority with enough traditional values
to survive a popular vote?"
With a cameo appearance by Mormon Glenn Beck.
Just James
LOL. Good find John.
--
Just James
"Not everyone requires a rational explanation before they can believe
something. It's called faith." ~ Zootal (ARM 10/20/2009)
Priceless
The Master
> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
> rights by popular vote.
I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away by
the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
permissions.
By that same standard, however, what of the right to say no? That is, the
right of choice, to decide for yourself. Government and democracy, by
their very nature, concentrates power and authority by taking it away from
the minority. In the government's quest to "reform" health care, they
desire to take from you your right to say no, the right to not have health
insurance. Even the right to not fund programs is taken from you, the
government controling a large portion of your earned income each year.
The more the government defines morality and society, the more rights and
freedoms are stolen from the individual. People like Manning piss me off
because they wish to defend one set of rights, but attack others.
Just James
>
>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
>> rights by popular vote.
>
> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
> permissions.
I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>
> By that same standard, however, what of the right to say no? That is,
> the right of choice, to decide for yourself. Government and democracy,
> by their very nature, concentrates power and authority by taking it away
> from the minority. In the government's quest to "reform" health care,
> they desire to take from you your right to say no, the right to not have
> health insurance. Even the right to not fund programs is taken from
> you, the government controlling a large portion of your earned income
> each year.
I don't think it is right to make insurance compulsory. While auto
liability is compulsory, not having it can be detrimental to the rights
of those who do. Can the same be said for health insurance? One might
argue yes. Since a hospital cannot ethically turn anyone away, if they
treat someone who cannot pay, the cost would need to be shared by those
who do.
>
> The more the government defines morality and society, the more rights
> and freedoms are stolen from the individual. People like Manning piss
> me off because they wish to defend one set of rights, but attack others.
So, beside the right to say "no", what other rights so you feel JohnM
would like to see stolen from you?
Mike Sullivan
"Just James" <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The Master wrote:
>>
>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
>>> rights by popular vote.
>>
>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
>> permissions.
>
> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>
>>
>> By that same standard, however, what of the right to say no? That is,
>> the right of choice, to decide for yourself. Government and democracy,
>> by their very nature, concentrates power and authority by taking it away
>> from the minority. In the government's quest to "reform" health care,
>> they desire to take from you your right to say no, the right to not have
>> health insurance. Even the right to not fund programs is taken from you,
>> the government controlling a large portion of your earned income each
>> year.
>
> I don't think it is right to make insurance compulsory. While auto
> liability is compulsory, not having it can be detrimental to the rights of
> those who do. Can the same be said for health insurance? One might argue
> yes. Since a hospital cannot ethically turn anyone away, if they treat
> someone who cannot pay, the cost would need to be shared by those who do.
Indeed, this IS the current system, this is what ppl fail to realize.
One of the reasons health care costs are so high is because the ppl who
pay, pay for those who cannot.
The fallacy, however, with comparing it to auto insurance is that driving
a car on public roads is not a right, but a privilege. So it's well within
our rights to be protected from other drivers.
The flaw in the debate over the nuances of overhauling the health insurance
industry is that the for-profit industry is fundamentally flawed by it's
nature.
Health insurance should either be single-payer, or non-profit like the Swiss
model,
and health care services can be for-profit or non-profit enterprises, either
way.
The nature of insurance for either auto or health is that companies make
more profit
by not paying claims. In auto insurance, nobody beefs if someone with a bad
driving record has to pay exorbinant fees, and indeed insurance companies
don't
even have to bother with those who have their licenses suspended because
they
are so bad.
This simply can't work with health insurance, as you point out, there's a
moral
component to health care.
The Master
>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by government
>> or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away by the whim of
>> the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but permissions.
>
> I agree. But how do you define "rights"?
Ultimately, you have the right "to keep". You also have the right "to
do". Each right "to" includes the right "to not", creating the right "of
free choice." You have the right to do, and to not do. You have the
right to keep, and to not keep. You have the right to decide for
yourself, no one else has the right to decide for you.
Notice two very important things. First, you do not have the right to
get, only the right to keep. Second, rights of two different people can
be in opposition.
When the rights of two people "to do" or "to not do" contradict eachother,
the right of free choice comes into play. You have the right to do, until
it violates the right of someone else to do. If that violation were to
occure, it takes from the second person, the right to keep free choice.
The first moves from action into violation.
> Who sets that standard?
One of the legitimate uses of governments is to set fourth punishment for
those that violate the rights of others. This is not to say that
government defines rights, rather they define the punishment for violating
said right that already existed. Some rights will not have punishments
assigned for their violation, but no place should there be punishment for
the free exercise of rights that cause no harm.
In that respect, government sets the standard for protection of rights,
but not the standard for definition of rights.
> I don't think it is right to make insurance compulsory. While auto liability
> is compulsory, not having it can be detrimental to the rights of those who
> do. Can the same be said for health insurance? One might argue yes. Since
> a hospital cannot ethically turn anyone away, if they treat someone who
> cannot pay, the cost would need to be shared by those who do.
Personally, I think the auto insurance industry is flawed to start with.
Car insurance should be "no fault" insurance, where you pay for insurance
to pay for your car alone. Beyond that, however, you do not need to own
car insurance if you do not have a car. Someone who rides a bicycle is
not required to get car insurance. So even under the fucked up system,
there still is options that allows you to exist without. Under the
democrat plan for health care, being without health insurance is a crime,
even if you are healthy.
As for the hospital, they should sue the living crap out of the uninsured
moron. If that person has no insurance, then they are black listed, and
given no more health services until the previous bill is paid. In that
case, you better hope that next time you break your arm, you live in an
area covered by a hospital like Parkland, hu?
>> The more the government defines morality and society, the more rights and
>> freedoms are stolen from the individual. People like Manning piss me off
>> because they wish to defend one set of rights, but attack others.
>
> So, beside the right to say "no", what other rights so you feel JohnM would
> like to see stolen from you?
My right to own a fully automatic AK47. The fucking bastard...
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
� excellent.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
The Master
> One of the reasons health care costs are so high is because the ppl who
> pay, pay for those who cannot.
The "right" to be treated in the ER, the very situation that you are
arguing drives up the costs of health coverage, has been REQUIRED BY
FEDERAL LAW since 1986.
The very problem you want government regulations to solve, was caused by
government regulations.
Just James
Without that law, do you think a doctor would turn away a patient?
The Master
>>> One of the reasons health care costs are so high is because the ppl who
>>> pay, pay for those who cannot.
>>
>> The "right" to be treated in the ER, the very situation that you are
>> arguing drives up the costs of health coverage, has been REQUIRED BY
>> FEDERAL LAW since 1986.
>>
>> The very problem you want government regulations to solve, was caused by
>> government regulations.
>
> Without that law, do you think a doctor would turn away a patient?
Yes, "patient dumping" was happening at the time prior to 1986. However,
somehow the people in 1950 were able to survive... A situation that
wasn't "nice", addressed by government regulations that made the cure
worse then the so-called problem, that now needs more government
regulation to fix the government regulation. Do you think they will get
it right this time, or will they cause more problems that will need
government regulation to fix?
The Masterstan solution to patient dumping is James making his own
charity, to pay the medical bills of the poor who cannot afford insurance.
Since Sullivan is a liberal, he will gladly donate some of his money to
your charity, as will Manning, Anderson, and even Obama. Ofcourse, I hate
poor people, so I won't donate my money. People still hae choice, and the
service is still provided by people wanting to "do the right thing".
Mike Sullivan
"The Master" <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@sdf.lonestar.org...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Just James wrote:
>
>>>> One of the reasons health care costs are so high is because the ppl who
>>>> pay, pay for those who cannot.
>>>
>>> The "right" to be treated in the ER, the very situation that you are
>>> arguing drives up the costs of health coverage, has been REQUIRED BY
>>> FEDERAL LAW since 1986.
>>>
>>> The very problem you want government regulations to solve, was caused by
>>> government regulations.
>>
>> Without that law, do you think a doctor would turn away a patient?
>
> Yes, "patient dumping" was happening at the time prior to 1986. However,
> somehow the people in 1950 were able to survive... A situation that
Patient dumping still happens now, and the 1986 law only applies to
hospitals
that receive federal funding.
In Mastertopia, mortality rates are very high, there is no public health
departments so
diseases run rampant, and spare kidneys are harvested from the poor in
exchange for health care for their children.
Awesome place.
The Master
> In Mastertopia, mortality rates are very high, there is no public health
> departments so
> diseases run rampant, and spare kidneys are harvested from the poor in
> exchange for health care for their children.
Ofcourse there is no public health department, people are 100% liable for
their own health. Are you arguing that the poor are such losers that they
will be unable to find ways to get health care without selling body parts?
Damn man, that's harsh. You are such a bigot.
Mike Sullivan
"The Master" <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@sdf.lonestar.org...
You display your ignorance on what public health departments do.
It was one of the greatest revolutions in health care to require hospitals
by law to keep clean and disinfected.
There are other ways besides selling body parts in Mastertopia for the
desperate poor to take care of their health needs of their children. They
could kidnap the children of doctors and hold them for ransom of their
own children's well being.
If a person in Mastertopia has a pre-existing condition of rhumatic fever as
a child such that they are unable to purchase health insurance, then find
that
a $150,000 heart bypass at age 23 will give them a full healthy life, what
would
be another way that that person could get the cash?
SOL in Mastertopia. Hopefully this person is attractive and personable and
can persuade some kind souls to help her out.
Mike Sullivan
"The Master" <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@sdf.lonestar.org...
BTW, we are speaking of Mastertopia here, not the real world, right?
The Master
>> Ofcourse there is no public health department, people are 100% liable for
>> their own health. Are you arguing that the poor are such losers that they
>> will be unable to find ways to get health care without selling body parts?
>> Damn man, that's harsh. You are such a bigot.
>>
>
> You display your ignorance on what public health departments do.
> It was one of the greatest revolutions in health care to require hospitals
> by law to keep clean and disinfected.
Would you freely go to a Masterstan hospital that is filthy? Or would you
be willing to pay more for a hospital that meets your personal standard?
I for one would be selective based on the service I am seeking. If I have
something minor, I would go to the clinic someone operates out of their
garage at home. If I had a slightly bigger problem, I might seek the
services of a clinic that is more clean.
Someone else, such as a poor person, might not be able to afford a more
clean clinic. Demanding that all clinics meet this more expensive
standard, you prevent the poor from being able to obtain services in the
first place. In Masterstan, both will exist, allowing individuals to
pick.
> There are other ways besides selling body parts in Mastertopia for the
> desperate poor to take care of their health needs of their children. They
> could kidnap the children of doctors and hold them for ransom of their
> own children's well being.
Now you think the poor are criminals? Why do you hate on the poor so much
Sullivan?
Anyhow, to address your point... They can always go to the garage
clinic... They can also barter for services. If the poor handyman cannot
afford doctor services, perhaps he can agree to provide services in a fair
and even exchange? In more rual communities, perhaps he raises goats, or
has crops. Perhaps he is a lawn worker and the doctor will allow him to
trim the bushes and mow the lawn a few times.
Keep in mind that since the government regulations that force doctor
visits to be so expensive are no longer in existance in Masterstan, and
individual clinics can decide for themself their own level of sanitation,
the price of preventative procedures will drop drastically.
> If a person in Mastertopia has a pre-existing condition of rhumatic fever as
> a child such that they are unable to purchase health insurance, then find
> that
> a $150,000 heart bypass at age 23 will give them a full healthy life, what
> would
> be another way that that person could get the cash?
Liberal Sullivan, and his "I feel sorry for you poor people" charity can
raise the money. In Masterstan, people have the right to create
charities. You wouldn't stop being a feel good libby, would you?
> SOL in Mastertopia.
Damn Sullivan, you wouldn't help your fellow man? I guess liberalism
really IS just an act.
> Hopefully this person is attractive and personable and
> can persuade some kind souls to help her out.
That's what charities are for, even today...
The Master
>>> In Mastertopia, mortality rates are very high, there is no public
>>> health
>>> departments so
>>> diseases run rampant, and spare kidneys are harvested from the poor in
>>> exchange for health care for their children.
>>
>> Ofcourse there is no public health department, people are 100% liable for
>> their own health. Are you arguing that the poor are such losers that they
>> will be unable to find ways to get health care without selling body parts?
>> Damn man, that's harsh. You are such a bigot.
>
> BTW, we are speaking of Mastertopia here, not the real world, right?
Yes. You invoked it's name, and I assumed that is where we are talking
about.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mike Sullivan
"The Master" <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@sdf.lonestar.org...
>
>>> Ofcourse there is no public health department, people are 100% liable
>>> for
>>> their own health. Are you arguing that the poor are such losers that
>>> they
>>> will be unable to find ways to get health care without selling body
>>> parts?
>>> Damn man, that's harsh. You are such a bigot.
>>>
>>
>> You display your ignorance on what public health departments do.
>> It was one of the greatest revolutions in health care to require
>> hospitals
>> by law to keep clean and disinfected.
>
> Would you freely go to a Masterstan hospital that is filthy? Or would you
> be willing to pay more for a hospital that meets your personal standard?
In Mastertopia I would pay more, of course. But in Mastertopia there's
no guarantee that a hospital that appears cleaner is actually following
the sterilization procedures it claims to, and since there is no public
health
dept to report on health statistics from that and other hospitals, I have
to take their word and that of the advertising.
If charities worked we wouldn't have had the health care disaster
that Medicare was created to address.
The Master
>> Would you freely go to a Masterstan hospital that is filthy? Or would you
>> be willing to pay more for a hospital that meets your personal standard?
>
> In Mastertopia I would pay more, of course.
Then there is no problem.
> But in Mastertopia there's
> no guarantee that a hospital that appears cleaner is actually following
> the sterilization procedures it claims to, and since there is no public
> health
> dept to report on health statistics from that and other hospitals, I have
> to take their word and that of the advertising.
If they aren't offering you a written guarantee, you better find one that
does. If they give you a written promise of the level of sterilization,
and they fail to provide that level, you have a breach of contract and can
sue them.
> If charities worked we wouldn't have had the health care disaster
> that Medicare was created to address.
If you think it was such a disaster, and if Medicare evaporates tomorrow,
would you donate your money to such a charity?
�R.L.Measures
<post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The Master wrote:
> >
> >> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
> >> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
> >> rights by popular vote.
> >
> > I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
> > democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
> > government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
> > by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
> > permissions.
>
> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>
� gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
John Manning
> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> The Master wrote:
>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
>>> permissions.
>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>
>
These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
Constitution."
The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
up, eh?
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
> > <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The Master wrote:
> >>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
> >>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
> >>>> rights by popular vote.
> >>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
> >>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
> >>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
> >>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
> >>> permissions.
> >> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
> >>
> > � gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >
>
>
>
> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> Constitution."
>
> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
> up, eh?
� There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the definitions of
words,
"Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�
Lloyd George
John Manning
> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Master wrote:
>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
>>>>> permissions.
>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>> Constitution."
>>
>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
>> up, eh?
>
> words,
>
You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
> "Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
> not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
> fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
> ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
> advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
> is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
> in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
> his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�
>
> Lloyd George
>
Yes, anti-Semitism is evil. And so is abuse of other peoples'
internationally recognized human rights.
Thankfully there are decent people who, like myself, think that ALL
people should be treated equally, Mr Measures the bigot.
Logan Sacket
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>�ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
>> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
>>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
>>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Master wrote:
>>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
>>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
>>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
>>>>>> permissions.
>>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>>>>
>>>> �ｿｽ gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>> Constitution."
>>>
>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
>>> up, eh?
>>
>> �ｿｽ There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the definitions of
>> words,
>>
>
>
>You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>
>
>> "Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
>> not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
>> fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
>> ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
>> advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
>> is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
>> in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
>> his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�ｿｽ
>>
>> Lloyd George
>>
>
>
>Yes, anti-Semitism is evil. And so is abuse of other peoples'
>internationally recognized human rights.
>
>Thankfully there are decent people who, like myself, think that ALL
>people should be treated equally, Mr Measures the bigot.
So, do you think Sarah Palin and Joe Biden should be treated equally?
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
> >>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The Master wrote:
> >>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
> >>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
> >>>>>> rights by popular vote.
> >>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
> >>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
> >>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
> >>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
> >>>>> permissions.
> >>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
> >>>>
> >>> �ｿｽ gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> >> Constitution."
> >>
> >> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
> >> up, eh?
> >
> > �ｿｽ There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the definitions of
> > words,
> >
>
>
> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
�ｿｽ hardly John. Gays already have equal rights under the provisions of
domestic partnerships. What they don't have is the right to change the
700-yr old definiton of the word marriage.
>
>
> > "Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
> > not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
> > fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
> > ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
> > advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
> > is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
> > in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
> > his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�ｿｽ
> >
> > Lloyd George
> >
>
>
> Yes, anti-Semitism is evil. And so is abuse of other peoples'
> internationally recognized human rights.
>
> Thankfully there are decent people who, like myself, think that ALL
> people should be treated equally, Mr Measures the bigot.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
CV
> In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3WnZ2dnUVZ_rGdn...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>
>
>
> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > •R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLWnZ2dnUVZ_jli4...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > >> •R.L.Measures wrote:
> > >>> In article <hejcrc$c7...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
> > >>> <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>> The Master wrote:
> > >>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
> > >>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
> > >>>>>> rights by popular vote.
> > >>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
> > >>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
> > >>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
> > >>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
> > >>>>> permissions.
> > >>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>
>
> > >> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> > >> Constitution."
>
> > >> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
> > >> up, eh?
>
> > > words,
>
> > You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> > conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>
> domestic partnerships. What they don't have is the right to change the
> 700-yr old definiton of the word marriage.
>
Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying. Gays do NOT have equal
Constitutional rights in all states.
Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
status" as heteros.
The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
"miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
Measures like it or not.
�R.L.Measures
<f1df0f95-d7f5-442a...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, CV
<cvil...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 3:12=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3WnZ2dnUVZ_rGdn...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >
> >
> >
> > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > > =95R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > > In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLWnZ2dnUVZ_jli4...@giganews.com>, John Mann=
> ing
> > > > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > > >> =95R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > >>> In article <hejcrc$c7...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
> > > >>> <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> The Master wrote:
> > > >>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons a=
> nd
> > > >>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling ou=
> t civil
> > > >>>>>> rights by popular vote.
> > > >>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond th=
> e
> > > >>>>> democratic process. =A0That is, they exist without being issued b=
> y
> > > >>>>> government or by popular demand. =A0If rights can be given and ta=
> ken away
> > > >>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all,=
> but
> > > >>>>> permissions.
> > > >>>> I agree. =A0But how do you define "rights"? =A0Who sets that stand=
> ard?
> >
> > > >>> =95 =A0gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >
> > > >> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> > > >> Constitution."
> >
> > > >> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look=
> it
> > > >> up, eh?
> >
> > > > =95 =A0There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the defini=
> tions of
> > > > words,
> >
> > > You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> > > conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
> >
> > =95 =A0hardly John. =A0Gays already have equal rights under the provision=
> s of
> > domestic partnerships. =A0What they don't have is the right to change the
> > 700-yr old definiton of the word marriage.
> >
>
>
> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying. Gays do NOT have equal
> Constitutional rights in all states.
� Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
>
> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> status" as heteros.
� needs fixing.
>
> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
> Measures like it or not.
� Zzzzzzzzzzz
John Manning
>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>> status" as heteros.
>
>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
>> Measures like it or not.
>
>
This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
bigot like Mr Measures.
John Manning
> In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
>>>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Master wrote:
>>>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling out civil
>>>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and taken away
>>>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
>>>>>>> permissions.
>>>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>>> Constitution."
>>>>
>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
>>>> up, eh?
>>> words,
>>>
>>
>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
> � hardly John. Gays already have equal rights under the provisions of
> domestic partnerships.
Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying. Gays do NOT have equal
Constitutional rights in all states.
Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
status" as heteros.
What they don't have is the right to change the
> 700-yr old definiton of the word marriage.
The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "slavery",
"miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
Measures like it or not.
>>> "Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
>>> not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
>>> fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
>>> ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
>>> advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
>>> is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
>>> in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
>>> his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >> status" as heteros.
> >
> > � needs fixing.
> >> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
> >> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
> >> Measures like it or not.
> >
> > � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >
>
>
> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
> bigot like Mr Measures.
� Zzzzz
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
> >>>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The Master wrote:
> >>>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
> >>>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling
out civil
> >>>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
> >>>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
> >>>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
> >>>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and
taken away
> >>>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
> >>>>>>> permissions.
> >>>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> �ｿｽ gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> >>>> Constitution."
> >>>>
> >>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
> >>>> up, eh?
> >>> �ｿｽ There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the definitions of
> >>> words,
> >>>
> >>
> >> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> >> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>
>
>
> > �ｿｽ hardly John. Gays already have equal rights under the provisions of
> > domestic partnerships.
>
>
>
> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
�ｿｽ I live in California John,
>Gays do NOT have equal
> Constitutional rights in all states.
>
> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> status" as heteros.
>
>
>
> What they don't have is the right to change the
> > 700-yr old definiton of the word marriage.
>
>
>
> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "slavery",
> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
> Measures like it or not.
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
> >>> not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
> >>> fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
> >>> ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
> >>> advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
> >>> is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
> >>> in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
> >>> his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�ｿｽ
> >>>
> >>> Lloyd George
>
>
> >> Yes, anti-Semitism is evil. And so is abuse of other peoples'
> >> internationally recognized human rights.
> >>
> >> Thankfully there are decent people who, like myself, think that ALL
> >> people should be treated equally, Mr Measures the bigot.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
John Manning
> In article <ROydnQI22vfLrozW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>>>> status" as heteros.
>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
>>>> Measures like it or not.
>>>
>>
>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
>> bigot like Mr Measures.
>
>
As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
John Manning
> In article <zsudnfvVqK-K5IzW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
>>>>>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Master wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>>>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling
> out civil
>>>>>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>>>>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>>>>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>>>>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and
> taken away
>>>>>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
>>>>>>>>> permissions.
>>>>>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>>>>> Constitution."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
>>>>>> up, eh?
>>>>> words,
>>>>>
>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>>
>>
>>> domestic partnerships.
>>
>>
>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
>
Doesn't change the facts that you're lying. Gays do NOT have equal
Constitutional rights in all states as you suggested.
>
>> Gays do NOT have equal
>> Constitutional rights in all states.
>>
>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>> status" as heteros.
>>
>>
>>
>> What they don't have is the right to change the
>>> 700-yr old definiton of the word marriage.
>>
>>
>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "slavery",
>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
>> Measures like it or not.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
>>>>> not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
>>>>> fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
>>>>> ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
>>>>> advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
>>>>> is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
>>>>> in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
>>>>> his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�
John Manning
> In article <zsudnfvVqK-K5IzW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
>>>>>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Master wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>>>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling
> out civil
>>>>>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>>>>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>>>>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>>>>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and
> taken away
>>>>>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at all, but
>>>>>>>>> permissions.
>>>>>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>>>>> Constitution."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should look it
>>>>>> up, eh?
>>>>> words,
>>>>>
>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>>
>>
>>> domestic partnerships.
>>
>>
>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
>
Gays in CALIFORNIA who DO have equivalent domestic partnership rights do
NOT have the same legal right of "marriage status" as heteros.
Nor do gays yet have COMPLETE equal rights as heteros when it comes to
"marriage status" across the USA except in five states so far.
Measures knows this, but bigots like him will do the equivalent of the
Mormon Shuffle to avoid facing their own classic bigotry.
>
>> Gays do NOT have equal
>> Constitutional rights in all states.
>>
>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>> status" as heteros.
>>
>>
>>
>> What they don't have is the right to change the
>>> 700-yr old definiton of the word marriage.
>>
>>
>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "slavery",
>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
>> Measures like it or not.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man's nature, there is
>>>>> not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. If the Jews are rich [these
>>>>> fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
>>>>> ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
>>>>> advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
>>>>> is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
>>>>> in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
>>>>> his own land, he is prevented from doing so.�
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>> � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >>>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >>>> status" as heteros.
> >>> � needs fixing.
> >>>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
> >>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
> >>>> Measures like it or not.
> >>> � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
> >> bigot like Mr Measures.
> >
> > � Zzzzz
> >
>
>
> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
� anal intercourse is not the same as coitus.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>> � gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> >>>>>> Constitution."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
look it
> >>>>>> up, eh?
> >>>>> � There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the
definitions of
> >>>>> words,
> >>>>>
> >>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> >>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
> >>
> >>
> >>> � hardly John. Gays already have equal rights under the provisions of
> >>> domestic partnerships.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
> >
> > � I live in California John,
>
>
> Doesn't change the facts that you're lying. Gays do NOT have equal
> Constitutional rights in all states as you suggested.
>
� Did you not imply that they had none?
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>> � gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> >>>>>> Constitution."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
look it
> >>>>>> up, eh?
> >>>>> � There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the
definitions of
> >>>>> words,
> >>>>>
> >>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> >>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
> >>
> >>
> >>> � hardly John. Gays already have equal rights under the provisions of
> >>> domestic partnerships.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
> >
> > � I live in California John,
>
>
> Gays in CALIFORNIA who DO have equivalent domestic partnership rights do
> NOT have the same legal right of "marriage status" as heteros.
� marriage means a union between one man and one woman -- including the
the queen of spades and jack of diamonds. Would you change the rules in
pinochle John?
>
> Nor do gays yet have COMPLETE equal rights as heteros when it comes to
> "marriage status" across the USA except in five states so far.
� what are the other four?
>
> Measures knows this, but bigots like him will do the equivalent of the
> Mormon Shuffle to avoid facing their own classic bigotry.
>
� Ask any Jew on this newsgroup if John M. is biased against Jews.
John Manning
> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <zsudnfvVqK-K5IzW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
>>>>>>>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Master wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>>>>>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling
>>> out civil
>>>>>>>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>>>>>>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>>>>>>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and
>>> taken away
>>>>>>>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at
> all, but
>>>>>>>>>>> permissions.
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>>>>>>> Constitution."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
> look it
>>>>>>>> up, eh?
> definitions of
>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>>>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>>> domestic partnerships.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
>> Doesn't change the facts that you're lying. Gays do NOT have equal
>> Constitutional rights in all states as you suggested.
>>
>
No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
"marriage status" as heteros. That's because you are a bigot, Mr Measures.
John Manning
> In article <RYydnSUmDox75o_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <ROydnQI22vfLrozW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>>>>>> status" as heteros.
>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
>>>>>
>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
>>>
>>
>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
>
>
That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant to
the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
those same human equal rights.
You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
John Manning
> In article <x4ednWUir8oT44_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <zsudnfvVqK-K5IzW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <TvadnfP9BduLpo3W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vN-dnQQoHt1nVJLW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <hejcrc$c75$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Just James
>>>>>>>>> <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Master wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, calls out Mormons and
>>>>>>>>>>>> schools all Americans on the unconstitutional craze of doling
>>> out civil
>>>>>>>>>>>> rights by popular vote.
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the concept of rights require that they be beyond the
>>>>>>>>>>> democratic process. That is, they exist without being issued by
>>>>>>>>>>> government or by popular demand. If rights can be given and
>>> taken away
>>>>>>>>>>> by the whim of the popular vote, then they are not rights at
> all, but
>>>>>>>>>>> permissions.
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But how do you define "rights"? Who sets that standard?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>>>>>>> Constitution."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
> look it
>>>>>>>> up, eh?
> definitions of
>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>>>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>>> domestic partnerships.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
>> Gays in CALIFORNIA who DO have equivalent domestic partnership rights do
>> NOT have the same legal right of "marriage status" as heteros.
>
> the queen of spades and jack of diamonds. Would you change the rules in
> pinochle John?
The issue of equal human rights isn't a card game, Mr Measures the bigot.
>> Nor do gays yet have COMPLETE equal rights as heteros when it comes to
>> "marriage status" across the USA except in five states so far.
>
> � what are the other four?
>
The "other four" what?
>> Measures knows this, but bigots like him will do the equivalent of the
>> Mormon Shuffle to avoid facing their own classic bigotry.
>>
> � Ask any Jew on this newsgroup if John M. is biased against Jews.
>
I'd suggest that the vast majority of Jews agree with my view that ALL
peoples' are deserving of equal human rights under international law.
Mr Measures, the bigot, is just trying to draw attention away from his
blatant bigotry against gays by changing the subject.
That's the kind of thing bigots do when they are called out on their
shameful bigotry.
Logan Sacket
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>I'd suggest that the vast majority of Jews agree with my view that ALL
>peoples' are deserving of equal human rights under international law.
Does Israel have a right under international law to stay in the West
Bank?
--------------
The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal
action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the
West Bank illegal, she is violating international law.
The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US
and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted
upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West
Bank within its borders.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243026960&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> � gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> >>>>>>>> Constitution."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
> > look it
> >>>>>>>> up, eh?
> >>>>>>> � There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the
> > definitions of
> >>>>>>> words,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> >>>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
> >>>>
> >>>>> � hardly John. Gays already have equal rights under the provisions of
> >>>>> domestic partnerships.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
> >>> � I live in California John,
> >>
> >> Doesn't change the facts that you're lying. Gays do NOT have equal
> >> Constitutional rights in all states as you suggested.
> >>
> > � Did you not imply that they had none?
> >
>
>
> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
> "marriage status" as heteros.
� correct. I don't think any group has the right to a change word
definition.
> That's because you are a bigot, Mr Measures.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>> � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >>>>>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >>>>>> status" as heteros.
> >>>>> � needs fixing.
> >>>>>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
> >>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
> >>>>>> Measures like it or not.
> >>>>> � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
> >>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
> >>> � Zzzzz
> >>>
> >>
> >> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
> >> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
> >
> > � anal intercourse is not the same as coitus.
> >
>
>
> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
>
> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
>
> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant to
> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
>
> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
> those same human equal rights.
>
> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
� ____
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> � gays who want to change the definnition of a word?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
> >>>>>>>> Constitution."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
> > look it
> >>>>>>>> up, eh?
> >>>>>>> � There is nothing in the Constitution about changing the
> > definitions of
> >>>>>>> words,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
> >>>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
> >>>>
> >>>>> � hardly John. Gays already have equal rights under the provisions of
> >>>>> domestic partnerships.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
> >>> � I live in California John,
> >>
> >> Gays in CALIFORNIA who DO have equivalent domestic partnership rights do
> >> NOT have the same legal right of "marriage status" as heteros.
> >
> > � marriage means a union between one man and one woman -- including the
> > the queen of spades and jack of diamonds. Would you change the rules in
> > pinochle John?
>
>
> The issue of equal human rights isn't a card game, Mr Measures the bigot.
>
>
>
>
> >> Nor do gays yet have COMPLETE equal rights as heteros when it comes to
> >> "marriage status" across the USA except in five states so far.
> >
> > � what are the other four?
> >
>
>
> The "other four" what?
>
>
>
> >> Measures knows this, but bigots like him will do the equivalent of the
> >> Mormon Shuffle to avoid facing their own classic bigotry.
> >>
> > � Ask any Jew on this newsgroup if John M. is biased against Jews.
> >
>
>
> I'd suggest that the vast majority of Jews agree with my view that ALL
> peoples' are deserving of equal human rights under international law.
>
> Mr Measures, the bigot, is just trying to draw attention away from his
> blatant bigotry against gays by changing the subject.
� I addressed the issue of anyone trying to change a word definition in
another post John.
>
> That's the kind of thing bigots do when they are called out on their
> shameful bigotry.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
John Manning
> In article <LPqdnfxbpMdAA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <RYydnSUmDox75o_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the Constitutional
>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots like Mr
>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
>>>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
>>>>>
>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
>>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
>>>
>>
>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
>>
>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
>>
>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant to
>> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
>>
>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
>> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
>> those same human equal rights.
>>
>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
>
>
This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
called out on his bigotry.
John Manning
> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
>>> look it
>>>>>>>>>> up, eh?
>>> definitions of
>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>>>>>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>>>>>>> domestic partnerships.
>>>>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
>>>> Constitutional rights in all states as you suggested.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
>> "marriage status" as heteros.
>
> definition.
>
Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
"miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
John Manning
> In article <Zt-dnaPuC7-API_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <x4ednWUir8oT44_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These words also have a definition: "Equal treatment under the
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The word "bigot" also has a definition , Rich. Maybe you should
>>> look it
>>>>>>>>>> up, eh?
>>> definitions of
>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean reinterpreting words like 'slavery' and 'miscegenation' to
>>>>>>>> conform to equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution?
>>>>>>> domestic partnerships.
>>>>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is lying.
>>>> NOT have the same legal right of "marriage status" as heteros.
>>> the queen of spades and jack of diamonds. Would you change the rules in
>>> pinochle John?
>>
>> The issue of equal human rights isn't a card game, Mr Measures the bigot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Nor do gays yet have COMPLETE equal rights as heteros when it comes to
>>>> "marriage status" across the USA except in five states so far.
>>>
>>
>> The "other four" what?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Measures knows this, but bigots like him will do the equivalent of the
>>>> Mormon Shuffle to avoid facing their own classic bigotry.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'd suggest that the vast majority of Jews agree with my view that ALL
>> peoples' are deserving of equal human rights under international law.
>>
>> Mr Measures, the bigot, is just trying to draw attention away from his
>> blatant bigotry against gays by changing the subject.
>
> another post John.
Yes, and this is how I responded: "Clearly the US Supreme Court has
redefined the words "slavery," "miscegenation," and "segregation" to
conform to the equal human rights and equal treatment of ALL human
beings under definitions.
This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept."
>> That's the kind of thing bigots do when they are called out on their
>> shameful bigotry.
>
Majd al-Din
Actually you are the Bigot and racist in this NG.
John Manning
Anybody who posts using a return address with the name 'Is...@Sucks.com'
is clearly a bigot like Mr Measures only with an embarrassing case of
emotional and intellectual immaturity.
'plonk'
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>> � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >>>>>>>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
> >>>>>>> � needs fixing.
> >>>>>>>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
Constitutional
> >>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
like Mr
> >>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
> >>>>>>> � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
> >>>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
> >>>>> � Zzzzz
> >>>>>
> >>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
> >>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
> >>> � anal intercourse is not the same as coitus.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
> >>
> >> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
> >> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
> >>
> >> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant to
> >> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
> >>
> >> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
> >> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
> >> those same human equal rights.
> >>
> >> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
> >
> > � ____
> >
>
>
> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
> called out on his bigotry.
� Is that you Duwayne?
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ...
> >> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
> >> "marriage status" as heteros.
> >
> > � correct. I don't think any group has the right to a change word
> > definition.
> >
>
>
> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>
> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>
� __
�R.L.Measures
<Is...@Sucks.com> wrote:
> John Manning wrote:
> >>>>>>>> � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >>>>>>>>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
> >>>>>>>> � needs fixing.
> >>>>>>>>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
> >>>>>>>>> Constitutional
> >>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
> >>>>>>>>> like Mr
> >>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
> >>>>>>>> � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect
> >>>>>>> from a bigot like Mr Measures.
> >>>>>> � Zzzzz
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
> >>>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
> >>>> � anal intercourse is not the same as coitus.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
> >>>
> >>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
> >>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
> >>>
> >>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant
> >>> to the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
> >>>
> >>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of
> >>> equal human rights while categorizing others not like him as not
> >>> worthy of those same human equal rights.
> >>>
> >>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
> >>
> >> � ____
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
> > called out on his bigotry.
>
> Actually you are the Bigot and racist in this NG.
� zzzzzz
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Majd al-Din wrote:
> > John Manning wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >>>>>>>>>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >>>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >>>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
> >>>>>>>>> � needs fixing.
> >>>>>>>>>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
> >>>>>>>>>> Constitutional
> >>>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >>>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
> >>>>>>>>>> like Mr
> >>>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
> >>>>>>>>> � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect
> >>>>>>>> from a bigot like Mr Measures.
> >>>>>>> � Zzzzz
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will
> >>>>>> never admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves
> >>>>>> as such.
> >>>>> � anal intercourse is not the same as coitus.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
> >>>>
> >>>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
> >>>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
> >>>>
> >>>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also
> >>>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of
> >>>> equal human rights while categorizing others not like him as not
> >>>> worthy of those same human equal rights.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
> >>>
> >>> � ____
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when
> >> he's called out on his bigotry.
> >
> > Actually you are the Bigot and racist in this NG.
>
>
> Anybody who posts using a return address with the name 'Is...@Sucks.com'
> is clearly a bigot like Mr Measures only with an embarrassing case of
> emotional and intellectual immaturity.
� chortle
>
> 'plonk'
John Manning
> In article <-dSdnYOJm7fPQo7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <LPqdnfxbpMdAA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>>>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
>>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
> Constitutional
>>>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>>>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
> like Mr
>>>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect from a
>>>>>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
>>>>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
>>>>>
>>>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
>>>>
>>>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
>>>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
>>>>
>>>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant to
>>>> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
>>>>
>>>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
>>>> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
>>>> those same human equal rights.
>>>>
>>>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
>>>
>>
>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
>> called out on his bigotry.
>
>
Another weak attempt from the bigot, Mr Measures, to shift attention
away from his shameful bigotry.
John Manning
> In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
>>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
>>> definition.
>>>
>>
>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>
>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>>
>
This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >>>>>>>>>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >>>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >>>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
> >>>>>>>>> � needs fixing.
> >>>>>>>>>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
> > Constitutional
> >>>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >>>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
> > like Mr
> >>>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
> >>>>>>>>> � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect
from a
> >>>>>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
> >>>>>>> � Zzzzz
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
> >>>>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
> >>>>> � anal intercourse is not the same as coitus.
> >>>>>
> >>>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
> >>>>
> >>>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
> >>>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
> >>>>
> >>>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant to
> >>>> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
> >>>> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
> >>>> those same human equal rights.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
> >>> � ____
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
> >> called out on his bigotry.
> >
> > � Is that you Duwayne?
> >
>
>
> Another weak attempt from the bigot, Mr Measures, to shift attention
> away from his shameful bigotry.
� It's only a word John.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
> >>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
> >>> � correct. I don't think any group has the right to a change word
> >>> definition.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> >> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
> >> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
> >>
> >> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
> >>
> > � __
> >
>
> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
> called out on his bigotry.
� much adoo a one word.
John Manning
> In article <OI6dnZSqpa-LvIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
>>>>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
>>>>> definition.
>>>>>
>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>>>
>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>>>>
>>>
>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
>> called out on his bigotry.
>
>
Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them because of
bigots like you, Mr Measures.
John Manning
> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <-dSdnYOJm7fPQo7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>>>>>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
>>> Constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>>>>>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
>>> like Mr
>>>>>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect
> from a
>>>>>>>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
>>>>>>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
>>>>>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also irrelevant to
>>>>>> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
>>>>>> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
>>>>>> those same human equal rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
>>>>>
>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>
>>
>> Another weak attempt from the bigot, Mr Measures, to shift attention
>> away from his shameful bigotry.
>
>
Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
"It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
> > called out on his bigotry.
>
> • Is that you Duwayne?
No, Rich, that wasn't me. I actually sign my posts -- and on the
occasion when I don't, my name is clearly identified in the header.
So telling whether or not a post belongs to me isn't really that hard
-- any fifth grader can do it.
BTW, would you mind pointing to the word "marriage" in the
constitution? [Hint -- it's not in there]
The words "equal protection of the laws," are in the Constitution,
though. It's in Amendment XIV.
But the word "marriage" never shows up -- nor is there any
requirement that the government of the United States of America follow
the demands of religious leaders in defining the legal meaning of the
word.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
CV
wrote:
Here's more on the subject:
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the
will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal
rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be
oppression."
~~ Thomas Jefferson
http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/em724.cfm
Let's also throw in James Madison from The Federalist No. 51:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were
to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government
would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you
must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the
next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of
auxiliary precautions.
~~ James Madison
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
Same Sex Marriage
“In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what they're
for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.”
~~ Richard Cohen – Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right – Not an Assault
on Family
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113003158.html
Duwaynea Anderson
>
> Let's also throw in James Madison from The Federalist No. 51:
>
> If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were
> to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government
> would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
> administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you
> must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the
> next place oblige it to control itself.
>
> A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
> government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of
> auxiliary precautions.
>
>
> Same Sex Marriage
>
> “In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what they're
> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
> and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.”
>
> ~~ Richard Cohen – Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right – Not an Assault
Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
interesting.
http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
John Manning
> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
>>
>> ~~ Richard Cohen � Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right � Not an Assault
>> on Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
>
> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
> interesting.
>
> http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
>
The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <OI6dnZSqpa-LvIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John
Manning
> >>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
> >>>>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
> >>>>> � correct. I don't think any group has the right to a change word
> >>>>> definition.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> >>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
> >>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
> >>>>
> >>> � __
> >>>
> >> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
> >> called out on his bigotry.
> >
> > � much adoo a word.
> >
>
>
> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them because of
> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
� I was for equal rights for non hetero couples before it happened in CA
John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
definition of an English word.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> � Here in the land of the fruits and nuts they do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Further, gays in *some* states who DO have equivalent domestic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
> >>>>>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
> >>>>>>>>>>> � needs fixing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The US Supreme Court, like it did with words like "salvery",
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
> >>> Constitutional
> >>>>>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
> >>> like Mr
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>> � Zzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect
> > from a
> >>>>>>>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
> >>>>>>>>> � Zzzzz
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
> >>>>>>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
> >>>>>>> � anal intercourse is not the same as coitus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
> >>>>>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also
irrelevant to
> >>>>>> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
> >>>>>> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
> >>>>>> those same human equal rights.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
> >>>>> � ____
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
> >>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>> � Is that you Duwayne?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Another weak attempt from the bigot, Mr Measures, to shift attention
> >> away from his shameful bigotry.
> >
> > � It's only a word John.
> >
>
>
> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>
> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
� Is John trying to ride a dead horse?
�R.L.Measures
<323c4c8b-5899-4531...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 5:39=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he'=
> s
> > > called out on his bigotry.
> >
> > =95 =A0Is that you Duwayne?
>
> No, Rich, that wasn't me. I actually sign my posts -- and on the
> occasion when I don't, my name is clearly identified in the header.
> So telling whether or not a post belongs to me isn't really that hard
> -- any fifth grader can do it.
>
> BTW, would you mind pointing to the word "marriage" in the
> constitution? [Hint -- it's not in there]
** I would mind because I already knew that.
>
> The words "equal protection of the laws," are in the Constitution,
> though. It's in Amendment XIV.
>
> But the word "marriage" never shows up -- nor is there any
> requirement that the government of the United States of America follow
> the demands of religious leaders in defining the legal meaning of the
> word.
>
** Indeed Duwayne. Nor is there anything in there about a right for any
group to be able to change the definition of an English word.
cheers
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
> >>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>>> � Is that you Duwayne?
> >> �In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what they're
> >> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
> >> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
> >> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
> >> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
> >> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
> >> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
> >> and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.�
> >>
> >> ~~ Richard Cohen � Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right � Not an Assault
> >> on
Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
> >
> > Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
> > interesting.
> >
> >
http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
> >
>
>
> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
� ... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John, my guess is
that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" between
the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
end
John Manning
> In article <fOKdnVft2ND3xYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <OI6dnZSqpa-LvIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John
> Manning
>>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same rights to
>>>>>>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>>>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
>>>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>
>>
>> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them because of
>> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
>
> John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
> definition of an English word.
>
And as such you confirm your status as a bigot by clearly stating that
gays are not equal to other human beings in being allowed "marriage" status.
Mr Measures would excludes gays from the right of marriage status he
enjoys because gays are different than he is.
John Manning
> In article <tMWdnSjKD979xIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership rights, do NOT have the same legal right of 'marriage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status" as heteros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation" and "segregation," indeed DOES have the
>>>>> Constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority to reinterpret those words to conform to COMPLETE equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights for gays, including the term "marriage," whether bigots
>>>>> like Mr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Measures like it or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of head-in-the-sand reaction one would expect
>>> from a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bigot like Mr Measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As you can see, classic bigots like Rich Measures simply will never
>>>>>>>>>> admit that they are bigots - even as they define themselves as such.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant to the issue of equal human rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Black people don't have the same skin color as whites. That's ALSO
>>>>>>>> irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Women don't have the same genitalia as men - which is also
> irrelevant to
>>>>>>>> the issue of equal rights and equal treatment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bigots like Mr Measures like to think of themselves as worthy of equal
>>>>>>>> human rights while categorizing others not like him as not worthy of
>>>>>>>> those same human equal rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're a classic bigot, Mr Measures by your own definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>>>
>>>> Another weak attempt from the bigot, Mr Measures, to shift attention
>>>> away from his shameful bigotry.
>>>
>>
>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>>
>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>
>
You're a classic shameful bigot, Rich, by your own definition. It's that
simple.
John Manning
Mr Measures, the bigot, thinks he can justify his shameful bigotry with
the excuse of holding to a definition of a word.
It's already been pointed out to the shameful bigot, Mr Measures that
the US Supreme Court is Constitutionally authorized to, and *has*
redefined previous words such as "slavery,' "miscegenation" and
"segregation" to conform to providing equal human rights and complete
equal treatment under the law.
John Manning
> In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot when he's
>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
>>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
>>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
>>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
>>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
>>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
>>>>
>>>> on
> Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
>>> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>>
> http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
>>
>> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
>
> that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
> of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" between
> the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
> end
>
Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
cards in a card game.
This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <fOKdnVft2ND3xYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <OI6dnZSqpa-LvIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>> In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John
Manning
> >>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John
> > Manning
> >>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same
rights to
> >>>>>>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
> >>>>>>> � correct. I don't think any group has the right to a change word
> >>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> >>>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human
rights
> >>>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot
accept.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> � __
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
> >>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>> � much adoo a word.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them because of
> >> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
> >
> > � I was for equal rights for non hetero couples before it happened in CA
> > John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
> > definition of an English word.
> >
>
>
> And as such you confirm your status as a bigot by clearly stating that
> gays are not equal to other human beings in being allowed "marriage" status.
� Name another group that has the right to change definitions.
>
> Mr Measures would excludes gays from the right of marriage status he
> enjoys
� Enjoys? You have got to be kidding John M.
> because gays are different than he is.
>
> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <tMWdnSjKD979xIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ...
> >>> � It's only a word John.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
> >> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
> >>
> >> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
> >> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
> >
> > � Is John trying to ride a dead horse?
> >
>
>
> You're a classic shameful bigot, Rich, by your own definition. It's that
> simple.
� and all of this is about one definition.
�R.L.Measures
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> >>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot
when he's
> >>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>>>>> � Is that you Duwayne?
> >>>> �In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what they're
> >>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
> >>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
> >>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
> >>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
> >>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
> >>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
> >>>> and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.�
> >>>>
> >>>> ~~ Richard Cohen � Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right � Not an Assault
> >>>> on
> >
Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
> >>> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
> >>> interesting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
> >>
> >> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
> >
> > � ... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John, my guess is
> > that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
> > of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" between
> > the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
> > end
> >
>
>
> Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
> that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
> cards in a card game.
>
> This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
> deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
>
> That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
� How many of you folks out there agree with John M. ?
John Manning
> In article <ApidnXxM17Yd8IvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <fOKdnVft2ND3xYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <OI6dnZSqpa-LvIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John
> Manning
>>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John
>>> Manning
>>>>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same
> rights to
>>>>>>>>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>>>>>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human
> rights
>>>>>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot
> accept.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>>>
>>>> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them because of
>>>> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
>>> John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
>>> definition of an English word.
>>>
>>
>> And as such you confirm your status as a bigot by clearly stating that
>> gays are not equal to other human beings in being allowed "marriage" status.
>
The US Supreme Court.
Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
"miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>> Mr Measures would excludes gays from the right of marriage status he
>> enjoys
>
> � Enjoys? You have got to be kidding John M.
John Manning
> In article <2YednRd-LMnW7YvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
This is how one would expect a shameful bigot to react after having been
called out for his bigotry.
John Manning
> In article <ApidnX9M17ae84vW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <tMWdnSjKD979xIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
>>>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
>>>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>>>
>>
>> You're a classic shameful bigot, Rich, by your own definition. It's that
>> simple.
>
>
Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
"It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
"miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <rKidnc703rX77IvWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>
>
>
> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > •R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojWnZ2dnUVZ_qOdn...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
>
> > > • ... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John, my guess is
> > > that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
> > > of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" between
> > > the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
> > > end
>
> > Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
> > that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
> > cards in a card game.
>
> > This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
> > deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
>
> > That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
>
> • How many of you folks out there agree with John M. ?
Are you serious, Rich? You've admitted that you don't support the idea
of basic human rights; you're on record saying that "basic human
rights" is a "cover for terrorists." Your disdain for basic human
rights and civil liberties denigrates the fundamental principles on
which this country was founded.
How could any red-blooded American patriot *not* disagree with the way
you hate core American principles like "liberty and freedom for all?"
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
John Manning
> In article <rKidnc703rX77IvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot
> when he's
>>>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
>>>>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
>>>>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
>>>>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
>>>>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
>>>>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on
> Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
>>>>> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
> http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
>>>> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
>>> that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
>>> of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" between
>>> the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
>>> end
>>>
>>
>> Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
>> that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
>> cards in a card game.
>>
>> This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
>> deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
>>
>> That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
>
>
Now Mr Measures, the bigot thinks he can justify his bigotry by calling
on readers who themselves may be bigots - as if that exonerates him from
his own shameful anti-gay bigotry.
This is the classic cowardly behavior of a shameful bigot.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> � correct. I don't think any group has the right to a change word
> >>>>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> >>>>>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human
> > rights
> >>>>>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot
> > accept.
> >>>>>>> � __
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
> >>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>>>> � much adoo a word.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them because of
> >>>> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
> >>> � I was for equal rights for non hetero couples before it happened in CA
> >>> John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
> >>> definition of an English word.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And as such you confirm your status as a bigot by clearly stating that
> >> gays are not equal to other human beings in being allowed "marriage"
status.
> >
> > � Name another group that has the right to change definitions.
>
>
> The US Supreme Court.
>
> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>
� nobody has the right to change a definition.
> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>
> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>
>
>
>
> >> Mr Measures would excludes gays from the right of marriage status he
> >> enjoys
> >
> > � Enjoys? You have got to be kidding John M.
> >
> >> because gays are different than he is.
> >>
> >> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
> >
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <ApidnX9M17ae84vW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <tMWdnSjKD979xIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> �ｿｽR.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>> �ｿｽ It's only a word John.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
> >>>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
> >>>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
> >>> �ｿｽ Is John trying to ride a dead horse?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're a classic shameful bigot, Rich, by your own definition. It's that
> >> simple.
> >
> > �ｿｽ and all of this is about one definition.
> >
>
>
>
> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>
> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>
> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>
> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
�ｿｽ I do not demand the right to change a word definition.
�R.L.Measures
<329b1bdd-04b7-4e77...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 7:06=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <rKidnc703rX77IvWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >
> >
> >
> > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > > =95R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > > In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojWnZ2dnUVZ_qOdn...@giganews.com>, John Mann=
> ing
> > > > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > > >>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > >>>>> <snip>
> > > >>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot
> > when he's
> > > >>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> > > >>>>>> =95 =A0Is that you Duwayne?
> > > >>>>> No, Rich, that wasn't me. =A0I actually sign my posts -- and on t=
> he
> > > >>>>> occasion when I don't, my name is clearly identified in the heade=
> r.
> > > >>>>> So telling whether or not a post belongs to me isn't really that =
> hard
> > > >>>>> -- any fifth grader can do it.
> > > >>>>> BTW, would you mind pointing to the word "marriage" in the
> > > >>>>> constitution? =A0[Hint -- it's not in there]
> > > >>>>> The words "equal protection of the laws," are in the Constitution=
> ,
> > > >>>>> though. =A0It's in Amendment XIV.
> > > >>>>> But the word "marriage" never shows up =A0-- nor is there any
> > > >>>>> requirement that the government of the United States of America f=
> ollow
> > > >>>>> the demands of religious leaders in defining the legal meaning of=
> the
> > > >>>>> word.
> > > >>>> Here's more on the subject:
> >
> > > >>>> All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the
> > > >>>> will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
> > > >>>> rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal
> > > >>>> rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be
> > > >>>> oppression."
> >
> > > >>>> ~~ Thomas
> > > > Jeffersonhttp://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/em724.c=
> fm
> > > >>>> Let's also throw in James Madison from The Federalist No. 51:
> >
> > > >>>> If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels we=
> re
> > > >>>> to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on governmen=
> t
> > > >>>> would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
> > > >>>> administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: y=
> ou
> > > >>>> must first enable the government to control the governed; and in t=
> he
> > > >>>> next place oblige it to control itself.
> >
> > > >>>> A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on th=
> e
> > > >>>> government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of
> > > >>>> auxiliary precautions.
> >
> > > >>>> ~~ James Madisonhttp://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
> >
> > > >>>> Same Sex Marriage
> >
> > > >>>> =93In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what t=
> hey're
> > > >>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
> > > >>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more t=
> han
> > > >>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
> > > >>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies=
> and
> > > >>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-dis=
> tant
> > > >>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land =
> --
> > > >>>> and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all abou=
> t.=94
> >
> > > >>>> ~~ Richard Cohen =96 Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right =96 Not an=
> Assault
> > > >>>> on
> >
> > Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2=
> 00...> >>> Thanks for posting those quotations. =A0Here's a site you might =
> find
> > > >>> interesting.
> >
> > http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=3Dtml-1&checkem..=
> .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
> >
> > > > =95 =A0... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John, my gue=
> ss is
> > > > that it will be defeated again. =A0Of course, If I'm wrong, then the =
> rules
> > > > of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" be=
> tween
> > > > the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds. =A0
> > > > end
> >
> > > Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human right=
> s
> > > that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
> > > cards in a card game.
> >
> > > This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
> > > deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
> >
> > > That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
> >
> ---
>
> > =95 =A0How many of you folks out there agree with John M. ?
>
> Are you serious, Rich? You've admitted that you don't support the idea
> of basic human rights; you're on record saying that "basic human
> rights" is a "cover for terrorists." Your disdain for basic human
> rights and civil liberties denigrates the fundamental principles on
> which this country was founded.
>
> How could any red-blooded American patriot *not* disagree with the way
> you hate core American principles like "liberty and freedom for all?"
>
** ______
�R.L.Measures
gIn article <_KmdnfEzZNt-S4rW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <rKidnc703rX77IvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot
> > when he's
> >>>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>>>>>>> � Is that you Duwayne?
> >>>>>> �In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what they're
> >>>>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
> >>>>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
> >>>>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
> >>>>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
> >>>>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
> >>>>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
> >>>>>> and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.�
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~ Richard Cohen � Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right � Not an Assault
> >>>>>> on
> >
Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
> >>>>> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
> >>>>> interesting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
> >>>> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
> >>> � ... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John, my guess is
> >>> that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
> >>> of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" between
> >>> the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
> >>> end
> >>>
> >>
> >> Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
> >> that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
> >> cards in a card game.
> >>
> >> This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
> >> deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
> >>
> >> That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
> >
> > � How many of you folks out there agree with John M. ?
> >
>
>
> Now Mr Measures, the bigot thinks he can justify his bigotry by calling
> on readers who themselves may be bigots - as if that exonerates him from
> his own shameful anti-gay bigotry.
>
> This is the classic cowardly behavior of a shameful bigot.
� ____
Duwaynea Anderson
> > .
>
> > > > >> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
>
> > > > > =95 =A0... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John, my gue=
> > ss is
> > > > > that it will be defeated again. =A0Of course, If I'm wrong, then the =
> > rules
> > > > > of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" be=
> > tween
> > > > > the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds. =A0
> > > > > end
>
> > > > Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human right=
> > s
> > > > that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
> > > > cards in a card game.
>
> > > > This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
> > > > deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
>
> > > > That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
>
> > ---
>
> > > =95 =A0How many of you folks out there agree with John M. ?
>
--
> > Are you serious, Rich? You've admitted that you don't support the idea
> > of basic human rights; you're on record saying that "basic human
> > rights" is a "cover for terrorists." Your disdain for basic human
> > rights and civil liberties denigrates the fundamental principles on
> > which this country was founded.
>
> > How could any red-blooded American patriot *not* disagree with the way
> > you hate core American principles like "liberty and freedom for all?"
>
> ** ______
Rich, you ignored all the questions. Why? Are you ashamed of your
anti-civil rights stance? I hope so. You should be.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
John Manning
> In article <_KmdnfYzZNuFS4rW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <ApidnX9M17ae84vW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <tMWdnSjKD979xIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
>>>>>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
>>>>>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>>>>>
>>>> You're a classic shameful bigot, Rich, by your own definition. It's that
>>>> simple.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>>
>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>
>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>>
>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>
>
Your "changing a word definition" excuse has been repeatedly shown to be
bogus, Mr Measures. Repeating it once again doesn't change that fact.
You're a shameful bigot, Mr Measures, who thinks he's worthy of equal
treatment under the law and others are not.
John Manning
> gIn article <_KmdnfEzZNt-S4rW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <rKidnc703rX77IvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot
>>> when he's
>>>>>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>>>>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
>>>>>>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
>>>>>>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
>>>>>>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and
>>>>>>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant
>>>>>>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on
> Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
>>>>>>> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
>>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
>>>>>> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
>>>>> that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
>>>>> of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage" between
>>>>> the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
>>>> that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
>>>> cards in a card game.
>>>>
>>>> This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
>>>> deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
>>>>
>>>> That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
>>>
>>
>> Now Mr Measures, the bigot thinks he can justify his bigotry by calling
>> on readers who themselves may be bigots - as if that exonerates him from
>> his own shameful anti-gay bigotry.
>>
>> This is the classic cowardly behavior of a shameful bigot.
>
>
This is the kind of response one can expect from a shameful bigot like
Mr Measures when he's called out on his bigotry.
John Manning
> In article <_KmdnfczZNvDSIrW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <2YednRd-LMnW7YvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>
This is the kind of response one can expect from a shameful bigot like
Mr Measures when he's called out on his bigotry.
John Manning
> In article <_KmdnfQzZNucSIrW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <ApidnXxM17Yd8IvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <fOKdnVft2ND3xYjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <OI6dnZSqpa-LvIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <qdSdnSLG0-cbfY7W...@giganews.com>, John
> Manning
>>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <LPqdnf1bpMdOA4_W...@giganews.com>, John
>>> Manning
>>>>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <RYydnSQmDozS4Y_W...@giganews.com>, John
>>>>> Manning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You have openly suggested that gays do NOT have the same
>>> rights to
>>>>>>>>>>>> "marriage status" as heteros.
>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human
>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot
>>> accept.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot who gets
>>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them because of
>>>>>> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
>>>>> John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
>>>>> definition of an English word.
>>>>>
>>>> And as such you confirm your status as a bigot by clearly stating that
>>>> gays are not equal to other human beings in being allowed "marriage"
> status.
>> The US Supreme Court.
>>
>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>
>
Mr Measures' claim about "changing a word definition" has repeatedly
been pointed out to him to be bogus.
Here it is again:
The US Supreme Court indeed DOES have the Constitutional authority to
reinterpret the meaning of words to comply with equal treatment under
the law - as they have done in the past with words like "slavery,"
"miscegenation" and "segregation."
Mr Measures is clearly an anti-gay bigot who thinks he's entitled to
legal rights and marriage status while other human beings he considers
different from himself are not entitled to those same rights.
Mr Measures continues to illustrate for readers that he's a shameful bigot.
>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>>
>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Mr Measures would excludes gays from the right of marriage status he
>>>> enjoys
>>> � Enjoys? You have got to be kidding John M.
�R.L.Measures
<0b9c2e53-d9fa-4e9c...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:08=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <329b1bdd-04b7-4e77-af29-37d1fc28c...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 7:06=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article <rKidnc703rX77IvWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@giganews.com>, John Mann=
> ing
> >
> > > > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > > > > =3D95R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > > > > In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojWnZ2dnUVZ_qOdn...@giganews.com>, John =
> Mann=3D
> > > ing
> > > > > > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.co=
> m>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> <snip>
> > > > > >>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bi=
> got
> > > > when he's
> > > > > >>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> > > > > >>>>>> =3D95 =3DA0Is that you Duwayne?
> > > > > >>>>> No, Rich, that wasn't me. =3DA0I actually sign my posts -- an=
> d on t=3D
> > > he
> > > > > >>>>> occasion when I don't, my name is clearly identified in the h=
> eade=3D
> > > r.
> > > > > >>>>> So telling whether or not a post belongs to me isn't really t=
> hat =3D
> > > hard
> > > > > >>>>> -- any fifth grader can do it.
> > > > > >>>>> BTW, would you mind pointing to the word "marriage" in the
> > > > > >>>>> constitution? =3DA0[Hint -- it's not in there]
> > > > > >>>>> The words "equal protection of the laws," are in the Constitu=
> tion=3D
> > > ,
> > > > > >>>>> though. =3DA0It's in Amendment XIV.
> > > > > >>>>> But the word "marriage" never shows up =3DA0-- nor is there a=
> ny
> > > > > >>>>> requirement that the government of the United States of Ameri=
> ca f=3D
> > > ollow
> > > > > >>>>> the demands of religious leaders in defining the legal meanin=
> g of=3D
> > > =A0the
> > > > > >>>>> word.
> > > > > >>>> Here's more on the subject:
> >
> > > > > >>>> All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though=
> the
> > > > > >>>> will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to =
> be
> > > > > >>>> rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their e=
> qual
> > > > > >>>> rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be
> > > > > >>>> oppression."
> >
> > > > > >>>> ~~ Thomas
> > > > > > Jeffersonhttp://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/em7=
> 24.c=3D
> > > fm
> > > > > >>>> Let's also throw in James Madison from The Federalist No. 51:
> >
> > > > > >>>> If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angel=
> s we=3D
> > > re
> > > > > >>>> to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on gover=
> nmen=3D
> > > t
> > > > > >>>> would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
> > > > > >>>> administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in thi=
> s: y=3D
> > > ou
> > > > > >>>> must first enable the government to control the governed; and =
> in t=3D
> > > he
> > > > > >>>> next place oblige it to control itself.
> >
> > > > > >>>> A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control o=
> n th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > >>>> government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of
> > > > > >>>> auxiliary precautions.
> >
> > > > > >>>> ~~ James Madisonhttp://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
> >
> > > > > >>>> Same Sex Marriage
> >
> > > > > >>>> =3D93In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's =
> what t=3D
> > > hey're
> > > > > >>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allo=
> wed
> > > > > >>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any mo=
> re t=3D
> > > han
> > > > > >>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Suc=
> h a
> > > > > >>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David B=
> oies=3D
> > > =A0and
> > > > > >>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too=
> -dis=3D
> > > tant
> > > > > >>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the l=
> and =3D
> > > --
> > > > > >>>> and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all =
> abou=3D
> > > t.=3D94
> >
> > > > > >>>> ~~ Richard Cohen =3D96 Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right =3D9=
> 6 Not an=3D
> > > =A0Assault
> > > > > >>>> on
> >
> > > > Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30=
> /AR2=3D
> > > 00...> >>> Thanks for posting those quotations. =3DA0Here's a site you =
> might =3D
> > > find
> > > > > >>> interesting.
> >
> > > >http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=3D3Dtml-1&chec=
> k...
> > > .
> >
> > > > > >> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
> >
> > > > > > =3D95 =3DA0... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John=
> , my gue=3D
> > > ss is
> > > > > > that it will be defeated again. =3DA0Of course, If I'm wrong, the=
> n the =3D
> > > rules
> > > > > > of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage=
> " be=3D
> > > tween
> > > > > > the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds. =3DA0
> > > > > > end
> >
> > > > > Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human r=
> ight=3D
> > > s
> > > > > that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human bein=
> gs
> > > > > cards in a card game.
> >
> > > > > This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go =
> to
> > > > > deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
> >
> > > > > That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
> >
> > > ---
> >
> > > > =3D95 =3DA0How many of you folks out there agree with John M. ?
> >
>
> --
>
> > > Are you serious, Rich? You've admitted that you don't support the idea
> > > of basic human rights; you're on record saying that "basic human
> > > rights" is a "cover for terrorists." =A0Your disdain for basic human
> > > rights and civil liberties denigrates the fundamental principles on
> > > which this country was founded.
> >
> > > How could any red-blooded American patriot *not* disagree with the way
> > > you hate core American principles like "liberty and freedom for all?"
> >
> > ** =A0______
>
> Rich, you ignored all the questions. Why?
** because they were ignorable.
>Are you ashamed of your
> anti-civil rights stance?
** I have always supported equal rights for gay couples and heero
couples, but I do not support the right of anyone or any group to change a
word definition. In France, there is an Official French Language
Committee that controls words and their definitions. In my opinion,
Americans would never stand for this bullshit Duwayne.
end
>I hope so. You should be.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > In article <_KmdnfYzZNuFS4rW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <ApidnX9M17ae84vW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>> In article <tMWdnSjKD979xIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John
Manning
> >>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> � It's only a word John.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the
excuse of
> >>>>>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
> >>>>>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
> >>>>> � Is John trying to ride a dead horse?
> >>>>>
> >>>> You're a classic shameful bigot, Rich, by your own definition. It's that
> >>>> simple.
> >>> � and all of this is about one definition.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
> >> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
> >>
> >> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> >> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
> >> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
> >>
> >> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
> >>
> >> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
> >> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
> >
> > � I do not demand the right to change a word definition.
> >
>
>
> Your "changing a word definition" excuse has been repeatedly shown to be
> bogus, Mr Measures. Repeating it once again doesn't change that fact.
>
> You're a shameful bigot, Mr Measures, who thinks he's worthy of equal
> treatment under the law and others are not.
>
> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
� _____
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > gIn article <_KmdnfEzZNt-S4rW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> > <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>> In article <rKidnc703rX77IvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>>> In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot
> >>> when he's
> >>>>>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>>>>>>>>> � Is that you Duwayne?
> >>>>>>>> �In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what
they're
> >>>>>>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
> >>>>>>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
> >>>>>>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
> >>>>>>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David
Boies and
> >>>>>>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the
not-too-distant
> >>>>>>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
> >>>>>>>> and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.�
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ~~ Richard Cohen � Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right � Not an
Assault
> >>>>>>>> on
> >
Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
> >>>>>>> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
> >>>>>>> interesting.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >
http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
> >>>>>> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
> >>>>> � ... and if it gets on the ballot again here in CA John, my guess is
> >>>>> that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
> >>>>> of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage"
between
> >>>>> the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
> >>>>> end
> >>>>>
> >>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
> >>>> that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
> >>>> cards in a card game.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
> >>>> deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
> >>> � How many of you folks out there agree with John M. ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now Mr Measures, the bigot thinks he can justify his bigotry by calling
> >> on readers who themselves may be bigots - as if that exonerates him from
> >> his own shameful anti-gay bigotry.
> >>
> >> This is the classic cowardly behavior of a shameful bigot.
> >
> > � ____
> >
>
>
> This is the kind of response one can expect from a shameful bigot like
> Mr Measures when he's called out on his bigotry.
� no shame John. Dictating word definitions is pure, undiluted tfolly.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > � ____
> >
>
> This is the kind of response one can expect from a shameful bigot like
> Mr Measures when he's called out on his bigotry.
zzzzzzz
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> � correct. I don't think any group has the right to a
change word
> >>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> >>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human
> >>> rights
> >>>>>>>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot
> >>> accept.
> >>>>>>>>> � __
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot
who gets
> >>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> >>>>>>> � much adoo a word.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them
because of
> >>>>>> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
> >>>>> � I was for equal rights for non hetero couples before it
happened in CA
> >>>>> John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
> >>>>> definition of an English word.
> >>>>>
> >>>> And as such you confirm your status as a bigot by clearly stating that
> >>>> gays are not equal to other human beings in being allowed "marriage"
> > status.
> >>> � Name another group that has the right to change definitions.
> >>
> >> The US Supreme Court.
> >>
> >> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
> >> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
> >> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
> >>
> > � nobody has the right to change a definition.
> >
>
>
> Mr Measures' claim about "changing a word definition" has repeatedly
> been pointed out to him to be bogus.
>
chortle
John Manning
> In article <uIednUQtsMqVjYXW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <_KmdnfYzZNuFS4rW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <ApidnX9M17ae84vW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <tMWdnSjKD979xIjW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <OI6dnZWqpa9BvYjW...@giganews.com>, John
> Manning
>>>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the
> excuse of
>>>>>>>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
>>>>>>>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a classic shameful bigot, Rich, by your own definition. It's that
>>>>>> simple.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Equal human rights for those denied them is much more than the excuse of
>>>> "It's only a word" from a bigot like you, Mr Measures.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>>>
>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot accept.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Measures thinks he's more worthy of equality than gay human beings.
>>>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>>>
>>
>> Your "changing a word definition" excuse has been repeatedly shown to be
>> bogus, Mr Measures. Repeating it once again doesn't change that fact.
>>
>> You're a shameful bigot, Mr Measures, who thinks he's worthy of equal
>> treatment under the law and others are not.
>>
>> Mr Measures is a classic bigot.
>
>
This is the kind of response you can expect from a shameful anti-gay
bigot like Mr Measures when his bigotry is called out.
John Manning
> In article <uIednUctsMrFjYXW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> gIn article <_KmdnfEzZNt-S4rW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <rKidnc703rX77IvW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <wsCdnZDA7dKL5ojW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 11:14 am, CV <cvilla...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 5:39 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of response one you get from a shameful bigot
>>>>> when he's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
> they're
>>>>>>>>>> for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed
>>>>>>>>>> Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than
>>>>>>>>>> the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a
>>>>>>>>>> legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David
> Boies and
>>>>>>>>>> Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the
> not-too-distant
>>>>>>>>>> future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land --
>>>>>>>>>>
> Assault
>>>>>>>>>> on
> Familyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR200...
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for posting those quotations. Here's a site you might find
>>>>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.gayequalitycivilrightsmovement.com/?instance=tml-1&checkemail=registered
>>>>>>>> The issue certainly isn't going away. Thanks, Duwayne.
>>>>>>> that it will be defeated again. Of course, If I'm wrong, then the rules
>>>>>>> of Pinochle will probably have to be changed to allow a "marriage"
> between
>>>>>>> the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds.
>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr Measures, the bigot, shamefully attempts to equate equal human rights
>>>>>> that affect the lives of actual human beings as if those human beings
>>>>>> cards in a card game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an example of the absurd lengths a confirmed bigot will go to
>>>>>> deny his fellow human beings the same status he himself enjoys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's classic shameful bigotry, folks.
>>>>>
>>>> Now Mr Measures, the bigot thinks he can justify his bigotry by calling
>>>> on readers who themselves may be bigots - as if that exonerates him from
>>>> his own shameful anti-gay bigotry.
>>>>
>>>> This is the classic cowardly behavior of a shameful bigot.
>>>
>>
>> This is the kind of response one can expect from a shameful bigot like
>> Mr Measures when he's called out on his bigotry.
>
>
Mr Measures, the anti-gay bigot, would deny equal rights and equal
marriage status for gay human beings because of a word definition.
It has repeatedly been pointed out to this shameful bigot that his
excuse is bogus - yet as a shameful bigot with no legitimate
justification for his ugly bigotry, he repeats this bogus excuse.
There you have it folks. Mr Measures is hard core, self-defined shameful
bigot.
John Manning
> In article <uIednUYtsMoZjYXW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <_KmdnfczZNvDSIrW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> This is the kind of response one can expect from a shameful bigot like
>> Mr Measures when he's called out on his bigotry.
>
> zzzzzzz
>
This is the kind of response you can expect from a shameful bigot like
Rich Measures when he's called out on his shameful anti-gay bigotry and
his justifications for it have been shown to be bogus.
John Manning
> In article <wfqdnSwcbZzoj4XW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>>> In article <_KmdnfQzZNucSIrW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
> change word
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>>>>>>>>>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human
>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is something that shameful bigots like Rich Measures cannot
>>>>> accept.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of response that one can expect from a bigot
> who gets
>>>>>>>>>> called out on his bigotry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Equal human rights IS much ado to humans who are denied them
> because of
>>>>>>>> bigots like you, Mr Measures.
> happened in CA
>>>>>>> John. What I am not for is granting any group the right to change the
>>>>>>> definition of an English word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as such you confirm your status as a bigot by clearly stating that
>>>>>> gays are not equal to other human beings in being allowed "marriage"
>>> status.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly the US Supreme Court has redefined the words "slavery,"
>>>> "miscegenation," and "segregation" to conform to the equal human rights
>>>> and equal treatment of ALL human beings under definitions.
>>>>
>>
>> Mr Measures' claim about "changing a word definition" has repeatedly
>> been pointed out to him to be bogus.
>>
> chortle
>
Mr Measures, the anti-gay bigot, thinks it's funny when it's pointed out
that his excuses for his blatant bigotry are illegitimate.
This this is another example of the lack of personal ethics and moral
integrity of bigots in general.
Mr Measures is a classic example of a bigot.
John Manning
Mr Measures, the blatant anti-gay bigot, seems to forget that in America
under the authority and guidelines of the US Constitution the US Supreme
Court CAN and DOES reinterpret the meaning of words to guarantee equal
human rights and equal treatment under the law to all Americans - as
they have done in the past with words like "slavery," "miscegenation"
and "segregation."
And the American people certainly HAVE accepted it.
Duwaynea Anderson
You once said that the notion of "universal human rights" was
something you don't support because it "gives cover" to terrorists.
Would you like me to provide the link to our discussion on that
subject so you can read again how you persistently refused to support
the idea of universal human and civil rights?
> but I do not support the right of anyone or any group to change a
> word definition.
What's that got to do with civil rights and the notion that we are all
"equal under the law?"
Did you ever bother to read the US Constitution, as I suggested, and
see for yourself that the word "marriage" isn't in there? Equal
protection under the law is in there, though. It seems to me that the
person trying to redefine words is you -- you seem to want to change
the meaning of the words "equal protection under the law" to mean
something other than what the words actually say.
> In France, there is an Official French Language
> Committee that controls words and their definitions. In my opinion,
> Americans would never stand for this bullshit Duwayne.
Civil liberty isn't "bullshit," Rich. No matter how many times you
say it.