D
H
Howd E . Doodat
Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:41:44 GMT, Jd <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
>>Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
>>licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
>>affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
>>everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
>>all the rights of legally recognized couples.
>
>
>"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
>
>Jd
>
There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
><[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
>>Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
>>licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
>>affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
>>everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
>>all the rights of legally recognized couples.
>
>
>"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
>
>Jd
>
There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
H
Howd E . Doodat
Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:43:39 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
[email protected]...
>> <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>
>> >Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
>> >licensing them, and since the gov't has no
>legitimate
>> >place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all
>think
>> >of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both straight and gay, get a
>> >state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights of legally recognized
>> >couples.
>>
>
>That's nice. Got anything that's legally relevant?
>
>[snip bible thumping]
>
Or at least interesting?
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
[email protected]...>> <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>
>> >Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
>> >licensing them, and since the gov't has no
>legitimate
>> >place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all
>think
>> >of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both straight and gay, get a
>> >state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights of legally recognized
>> >couples.
>>
>
>That's nice. Got anything that's legally relevant?
>
>[snip bible thumping]
>
Or at least interesting?
H
Howd E . Doodat
Guest
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:36:03 GMT, Jd <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dennis Kemmerer, wrote:
>
>>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected]...
>>> <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>>
>>> >Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
>>> >licensing them, and since the gov't has no
>>legitimate
>>> >place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all
>>think
>>> >of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both straight and gay, get
>>> >a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights of legally
>>> >recognized couples.
>>>
>>
>>That's nice. Got anything that's legally relevant?
>
>Yeah... my lawyers Mr's. Smith and Wesson.
>
>Jd
Aww, sweety! You aren't planning on breaking God's 6th Commandment, are you?
>Dennis Kemmerer, wrote:
>
>>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news
[email protected]...>>> <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>>>
>>> >Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
>>> >licensing them, and since the gov't has no
>>legitimate
>>> >place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all
>>think
>>> >of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both straight and gay, get
>>> >a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights of legally
>>> >recognized couples.
>>>
>>
>>That's nice. Got anything that's legally relevant?
>
>Yeah... my lawyers Mr's. Smith and Wesson.
>
>Jd
Aww, sweety! You aren't planning on breaking God's 6th Commandment, are you?
T
tock
Guest
"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote
> >But let me ask you this . . . If you want other people to abide by Leviticus 18:22, would you
> >also say that people should abide by Leviticus 20:13, which says that gay people
have
> >to be put to death? If not, why should people abide by some parts of the Bible and not
others?
> >--Just curious . . . --Tock
>
> >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them
> >have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
>
> God has also given us behavioral guidelines.
>
> judgement of God?
1) first off, "God" has not given us diddly squat. At least not in the Bible, he hasn't.
2) There is no need to punish gay people, they commit no offenses.
3) Let me repeat the question before us . . . Are you in favor of making Capital Punishment, the
death penalty, mandatory for all gay people, as the Bible requires in Leviticus 20:13? If not,
then we can agree that you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to abide by and
which parts you won't. And if you do that, why can't anyone else? The point I'm making here is
that you either
a) follow ALL of the Bible, or
b) you don't. Which is it for you? Execute all the gay people in the world, or not? --Tock
> >But let me ask you this . . . If you want other people to abide by Leviticus 18:22, would you
> >also say that people should abide by Leviticus 20:13, which says that gay people
have
> >to be put to death? If not, why should people abide by some parts of the Bible and not
others?
> >--Just curious . . . --Tock
>
> >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them
> >have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
>
> God has also given us behavioral guidelines.
>
> judgement of God?
1) first off, "God" has not given us diddly squat. At least not in the Bible, he hasn't.
2) There is no need to punish gay people, they commit no offenses.
3) Let me repeat the question before us . . . Are you in favor of making Capital Punishment, the
death penalty, mandatory for all gay people, as the Bible requires in Leviticus 20:13? If not,
then we can agree that you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to abide by and
which parts you won't. And if you do that, why can't anyone else? The point I'm making here is
that you either
a) follow ALL of the Bible, or
b) you don't. Which is it for you? Execute all the gay people in the world, or not? --Tock
H
Howd E . Doodat
Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:35:49 -0800, "Dennis Kemmerer"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Dennis Kemmerer, wrote:
>>
>> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news[email protected]...
>> >> <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't
>has
>> >> >been keeping track or licensing them, and since the gov't has no
>> >legitimate
>> >> >place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all
>> >think
>> >> >of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody,
>both
>> >> >straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which
>ensures
>> >> >they get all the rights of legally recognized couples.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's nice. Got anything that's legally relevant?
>>
>> Yeah... my lawyers Mr's. Smith and Wesson.
>>
>> Jd
>>
>> "But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." - Jesus (Matthew26:32)
>
>Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Why am i not surprised.
Oh my god! It's President Bush!!! Duck!!!
Oh-oh...never mind. He just shot the bible and now he's scratching his head and trying to read
the Gun....
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Dennis Kemmerer, wrote:
>>
>> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news
[email protected]...>> >> <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't
>has
>> >> >been keeping track or licensing them, and since the gov't has no
>> >legitimate
>> >> >place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all
>> >think
>> >> >of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody,
>both
>> >> >straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which
>ensures
>> >> >they get all the rights of legally recognized couples.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's nice. Got anything that's legally relevant?
>>
>> Yeah... my lawyers Mr's. Smith and Wesson.
>>
>> Jd
>>
>> "But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." - Jesus (Matthew26:32)
>
>Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Why am i not surprised.
Oh my god! It's President Bush!!! Duck!!!
Oh-oh...never mind. He just shot the bible and now he's scratching his head and trying to read
the Gun....
H
Howd E . Doodat
Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:50:47 GMT, James L. Ryan <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:24 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?
>
>As I've tried to make clear, I consider "marriage" the subject of a union outside of the province
>of the law, and a "civil union" a legal contract between two or more persons that wish to share
>benefits and responsibilities. I have no interest in preventing marriages, say in the religious
>sense, whatsoever, and it doesn't matter to me who would perform them.
>
>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Then the issue is not about the ceremony, it's about the certificate. I realize that that's a "well,
DUH!" statement, but it's one that gets completely lost in the sea of sub-intellectual flotsam.
A "marriage license" is nothing more than a couple registering with the State a "statement of
intent" to officially troth to each other permanently. A Christian couple will have the registration
validated by a priest, a Jewish couple by a rabbi, and an atheist couple by a judge, for examples.
The ceremony may be as elaborate or as simple as the couple desires, but is, legally speaking,
meaningless.
And the certificate itself, once validated, must invoke the exact same benefits and liabilities
under the law regardless of the couple to whom the certificate was issued.
I have no problem with that, either.
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:24 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?
>
>As I've tried to make clear, I consider "marriage" the subject of a union outside of the province
>of the law, and a "civil union" a legal contract between two or more persons that wish to share
>benefits and responsibilities. I have no interest in preventing marriages, say in the religious
>sense, whatsoever, and it doesn't matter to me who would perform them.
>
>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Then the issue is not about the ceremony, it's about the certificate. I realize that that's a "well,
DUH!" statement, but it's one that gets completely lost in the sea of sub-intellectual flotsam.
A "marriage license" is nothing more than a couple registering with the State a "statement of
intent" to officially troth to each other permanently. A Christian couple will have the registration
validated by a priest, a Jewish couple by a rabbi, and an atheist couple by a judge, for examples.
The ceremony may be as elaborate or as simple as the couple desires, but is, legally speaking,
meaningless.
And the certificate itself, once validated, must invoke the exact same benefits and liabilities
under the law regardless of the couple to whom the certificate was issued.
I have no problem with that, either.
M
Matt
Guest
shawn wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>>>My, what an intelligent response. Are you employed as a part time tax return associate by H &
>>>R Block?
>>
>
> Har! Sorry, but that's a good one, below the belt. I've been thinking about who I'm going to have
> prepare my taxes this year. I went with Block last year, and it was just way too expensive. I'm
> happy to say that my cheapskate nature has won out, and I've decided to do them myself on
> Taxbrain.com.
>
> shawn
Well, I just use the ATO tax software which simply asks you for the information and it works out if
you require a refund. Last year I only needed to wait around a week for my refund.
Matt
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>>>My, what an intelligent response. Are you employed as a part time tax return associate by H &
>>>R Block?
>>
>
> Har! Sorry, but that's a good one, below the belt. I've been thinking about who I'm going to have
> prepare my taxes this year. I went with Block last year, and it was just way too expensive. I'm
> happy to say that my cheapskate nature has won out, and I've decided to do them myself on
> Taxbrain.com.
>
> shawn
Well, I just use the ATO tax software which simply asks you for the information and it works out if
you require a refund. Last year I only needed to wait around a week for my refund.
Matt
J
James L . Ryan
Guest
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:58:42 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
<[email protected]>):
> Some states allow non-clergy people to officiate at a marriage . . . In California, anyone can pay
> $25 and get a permit to do one marriage. In Colorado, the couple can solemnize the relationship
> themselves while filling out the marriage license.
>
> IMHO, though, states should stop calling what they do "marriage" because marriage is a religious
> thing, and governments have no legitimate business doing religious things. Instead, every state
> ought to just do "civil unions" for everybody, and instead of issuing "marriage licenses" they
> need to issue "civil union licenses." Then anyone wanting a church to marry 'em can go to Jerry
> Falwell or at the local MCC (gay church) and get it done. Controversy over. Next crisis, please .
Tock, you're a breath of fresh air in this endless discussion!
-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
<[email protected]>):
> Some states allow non-clergy people to officiate at a marriage . . . In California, anyone can pay
> $25 and get a permit to do one marriage. In Colorado, the couple can solemnize the relationship
> themselves while filling out the marriage license.
>
> IMHO, though, states should stop calling what they do "marriage" because marriage is a religious
> thing, and governments have no legitimate business doing religious things. Instead, every state
> ought to just do "civil unions" for everybody, and instead of issuing "marriage licenses" they
> need to issue "civil union licenses." Then anyone wanting a church to marry 'em can go to Jerry
> Falwell or at the local MCC (gay church) and get it done. Controversy over. Next crisis, please .
Tock, you're a breath of fresh air in this endless discussion!
-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
M
Matt
Guest
>>Are you still running around with that really jealous god who can't ever grow up and is always
>>throwing temper tantrums? What a loser.
>>
>
> You do realize that confessing you serve a false God makes you a false prophet don't you?
>
> 1Kings 18:40 And Elijah said unto them, "Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape".
> And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. (that's
> 450 corpses)
Well, good for them. How about using the tiny little brain of yours and come up with a reason
OUTSIDE the use of "copy and paste" from the bible.
Maybe we should sentence you to death; I am assuming you have a savings account, meaning, you're
committing usury if you accept interest payments or you lend money and charge interest.
http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?ViewBible=Ezekiel+18&Version=KJV
"But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, 6 And hath not eaten upon the
mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled
his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, 7 And hath not oppressed any,
but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to
the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 8 He that hath not given forth upon usury,
neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true
judgment between man and man, 9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal
truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD."
http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?ViewBible=Deuteronomy+23&Version=KJV
" Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any
thing that is lent upon usury: 20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother
thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine
hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."
Matt
>>throwing temper tantrums? What a loser.
>>
>
> You do realize that confessing you serve a false God makes you a false prophet don't you?
>
> 1Kings 18:40 And Elijah said unto them, "Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape".
> And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. (that's
> 450 corpses)
Well, good for them. How about using the tiny little brain of yours and come up with a reason
OUTSIDE the use of "copy and paste" from the bible.
Maybe we should sentence you to death; I am assuming you have a savings account, meaning, you're
committing usury if you accept interest payments or you lend money and charge interest.
http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?ViewBible=Ezekiel+18&Version=KJV
"But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, 6 And hath not eaten upon the
mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled
his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, 7 And hath not oppressed any,
but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to
the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 8 He that hath not given forth upon usury,
neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true
judgment between man and man, 9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal
truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD."
http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?ViewBible=Deuteronomy+23&Version=KJV
" Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any
thing that is lent upon usury: 20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother
thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine
hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."
Matt
T
tock
Guest
"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote
. . . s n i p . . .
> Even so you may merely mock and jeer. Nevertheless you will not be able to say " I never heard"
> when you stand before the judge of all mankind, because I have told you.
Largely because the messengers sounded like a bunch of nuts . . . caught molesting young children,
caught in adulterous affairs, taking "God's $$$" and spending millions on themselves and their
lavish lifestyle, caught in sleazy motels with prostitutes, and forever making claims that "The End
Is About To Come" and the end never comes . . . Ya, the messengers are nuts. --Tock
. . . s n i p . . .
> Even so you may merely mock and jeer. Nevertheless you will not be able to say " I never heard"
> when you stand before the judge of all mankind, because I have told you.
Largely because the messengers sounded like a bunch of nuts . . . caught molesting young children,
caught in adulterous affairs, taking "God's $$$" and spending millions on themselves and their
lavish lifestyle, caught in sleazy motels with prostitutes, and forever making claims that "The End
Is About To Come" and the end never comes . . . Ya, the messengers are nuts. --Tock
L
Letao
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:31 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
> > <[email protected]>):
> > >
> > > "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >
> > >> I look upon "marriage" as being a state of union with religious significance, something
> > >> different than a "civil union" which is a state recognized by the government. I'm a strong
> > >> proponent of keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from religions with
> > >> their myriad of diversities.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
> that
> > > gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions?
> > >
> > > -Tock
> >
> > We've got something of a Catch-22 here. Because "marriage" (traditionally between one man and
> > one woman) is currently so ingrained into our legal system it is not surprising that gay
> > organizations feel that gay couples should be treated equally. If, as I suggest, marriage as
> > such is
> considered a
> > relationship independent of the government, and that government recognized "civil unions" be
> > that which determine benefits and responsibilities, then
> we
> > hopefully will have ended a contentious area. -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>
>
> Well, I just e-mailed a copy of my notion to the members of the Massachusetts State Senate and to
> the Gov'nor. Figure that out of 30 or so folks, maybe one might actually read it. We'll see what
> happens from here, although I ain't holding my breath . . . not until I gargle with listerine,
> anyway . . . Thanks, --Tock
It's not the words, marriage or civil union, that get them upset. They're upset because they have to
share them with their fellow citizens. The fags are icky. They don't even want to listen to the
arguments put forth in court:
---------------------------------------
http://www.baywindows.com/news/2004/02/12/LocalNews/Gov-Romney.Disappoint s-604741.shtml "What most
concerned members of the group who met with Romney was his response to Julie Goodridge's question
about what she should tell her 8-year-old daughter Annie about why he believes her parents should
not be allowed to marry." Though Romney later responded to the question by telling Julie Goodridge
to continue to tell her daughter what's she been telling her for the last 8 years - the response
that was broadcast on TV news outlets - according to those with whom Bay Windows spoke, his initial
response was less definitive.
"[H]e said right out, 'I haven't thought about that,' which means that he has not given a
moment's thought to the thousands of children that are being raised in gay and lesbian
households," said Hillary Goodridge. "And those are his constituents. Those are children of the
Commonwealth. It's amazing."
----------------------------------------------
Romney (and cohorts) don't even want to understand what Goodridge was about. They couldn't care
less. If they were determined to make everyone equal, they wouldn't be creating New Jim Crow laws
and enshrining them in the Constitution. In their eyes, "there is No Equivalency!" They want to
impose a stain on the Commonwealth's Constitution that they will never be able to fully remove. All
to serve their willful ignorance in keeping themselves pure and untainted by the dirty homos.
Legislating people's rights away, simply ignoring due process the entire time.
They will never apply the title of civil unions to themselves not only because they are more pure
than the dirty homos, but also because they would run afoul of the laws of other states that don't
"recognize" civil unions.
Personally, I suggested this same strategy to my senator when he decided to go along with floating
the civil unions idea before the SJC. I hope they do it. I want to see the ensuing shitstorm when
the first man-woman civil union is denied recognition in a state that has mended their constitution
to say so. Somebody's gonna get a good dose of what Jim Crow really feels like in the new millenium.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:31 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
> > <[email protected]>):
> > >
> > > "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >
> > >> I look upon "marriage" as being a state of union with religious significance, something
> > >> different than a "civil union" which is a state recognized by the government. I'm a strong
> > >> proponent of keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from religions with
> > >> their myriad of diversities.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
> that
> > > gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions?
> > >
> > > -Tock
> >
> > We've got something of a Catch-22 here. Because "marriage" (traditionally between one man and
> > one woman) is currently so ingrained into our legal system it is not surprising that gay
> > organizations feel that gay couples should be treated equally. If, as I suggest, marriage as
> > such is
> considered a
> > relationship independent of the government, and that government recognized "civil unions" be
> > that which determine benefits and responsibilities, then
> we
> > hopefully will have ended a contentious area. -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>
>
> Well, I just e-mailed a copy of my notion to the members of the Massachusetts State Senate and to
> the Gov'nor. Figure that out of 30 or so folks, maybe one might actually read it. We'll see what
> happens from here, although I ain't holding my breath . . . not until I gargle with listerine,
> anyway . . . Thanks, --Tock
It's not the words, marriage or civil union, that get them upset. They're upset because they have to
share them with their fellow citizens. The fags are icky. They don't even want to listen to the
arguments put forth in court:
---------------------------------------
http://www.baywindows.com/news/2004/02/12/LocalNews/Gov-Romney.Disappoint s-604741.shtml "What most
concerned members of the group who met with Romney was his response to Julie Goodridge's question
about what she should tell her 8-year-old daughter Annie about why he believes her parents should
not be allowed to marry." Though Romney later responded to the question by telling Julie Goodridge
to continue to tell her daughter what's she been telling her for the last 8 years - the response
that was broadcast on TV news outlets - according to those with whom Bay Windows spoke, his initial
response was less definitive.
"[H]e said right out, 'I haven't thought about that,' which means that he has not given a
moment's thought to the thousands of children that are being raised in gay and lesbian
households," said Hillary Goodridge. "And those are his constituents. Those are children of the
Commonwealth. It's amazing."
----------------------------------------------
Romney (and cohorts) don't even want to understand what Goodridge was about. They couldn't care
less. If they were determined to make everyone equal, they wouldn't be creating New Jim Crow laws
and enshrining them in the Constitution. In their eyes, "there is No Equivalency!" They want to
impose a stain on the Commonwealth's Constitution that they will never be able to fully remove. All
to serve their willful ignorance in keeping themselves pure and untainted by the dirty homos.
Legislating people's rights away, simply ignoring due process the entire time.
They will never apply the title of civil unions to themselves not only because they are more pure
than the dirty homos, but also because they would run afoul of the laws of other states that don't
"recognize" civil unions.
Personally, I suggested this same strategy to my senator when he decided to go along with floating
the civil unions idea before the SJC. I hope they do it. I want to see the ensuing shitstorm when
the first man-woman civil union is denied recognition in a state that has mended their constitution
to say so. Somebody's gonna get a good dose of what Jim Crow really feels like in the new millenium.
M
Matt
Guest
> Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
>
> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
>
> Jd
>
> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Since this is from the old testament, and it has been clearly established that the bible is NOT the
word of god; you cannot claim that the the above quotation is the official standing of JC or God. I
think I would rather wait till I get to the pearly gates of heaven before assuming that something
like the above is correct.
btw, I actually prefer the literal translation:
Leviticus 18:22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
Matt
>
> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
>
> Jd
>
> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Since this is from the old testament, and it has been clearly established that the bible is NOT the
word of god; you cannot claim that the the above quotation is the official standing of JC or God. I
think I would rather wait till I get to the pearly gates of heaven before assuming that something
like the above is correct.
btw, I actually prefer the literal translation:
Leviticus 18:22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
Matt
T
tock
Guest
"Howd E. Doodat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:50:47 GMT, James L. Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:24 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote (in article
> ><[email protected]>):
> >
> >> Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating
at
> >> marriages, yes?
> >
> >As I've tried to make clear, I consider "marriage" the subject of a union outside of the province
> >of the law, and a "civil union" a legal contract between two or more persons that wish to share
> >benefits and
responsibilities.
> >I have no interest in preventing marriages, say in the religious sense, whatsoever, and it
> >doesn't matter to me who would perform them.
> >
> >-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>
> Then the issue is not about the ceremony, it's about the certificate. I realize that that's a
> "well, DUH!" statement, but it's one that gets completely lost in the sea of sub-intellectual
> flotsam.
>
> A "marriage license" is nothing more than a couple registering with the State a "statement of
> intent" to officially troth to each other permanently. A Christian couple will have the
> registration validated by a priest, a Jewish couple by a rabbi, and an atheist couple by a judge,
> for examples. The ceremony may be as elaborate or as simple as the couple desires, but is, legally
> speaking, meaningless.
>
> And the certificate itself, once validated, must invoke the exact same benefits and liabilities
> under the law regardless of the couple to whom the certificate was issued.
>
> I have no problem with that, either.
Yah, but they the states should change the name of the form they use from "marriage license" to
"civil union license" just to make clear what it is they're actually getting. I have no problem
relinquishing the word "marriage" to churches, so long as the gov't gives equal legal recognition to
everyone with a license of civil union. -Tock
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:50:47 GMT, James L. Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:24 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote (in article
> ><[email protected]>):
> >
> >> Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating
at
> >> marriages, yes?
> >
> >As I've tried to make clear, I consider "marriage" the subject of a union outside of the province
> >of the law, and a "civil union" a legal contract between two or more persons that wish to share
> >benefits and
responsibilities.
> >I have no interest in preventing marriages, say in the religious sense, whatsoever, and it
> >doesn't matter to me who would perform them.
> >
> >-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>
> Then the issue is not about the ceremony, it's about the certificate. I realize that that's a
> "well, DUH!" statement, but it's one that gets completely lost in the sea of sub-intellectual
> flotsam.
>
> A "marriage license" is nothing more than a couple registering with the State a "statement of
> intent" to officially troth to each other permanently. A Christian couple will have the
> registration validated by a priest, a Jewish couple by a rabbi, and an atheist couple by a judge,
> for examples. The ceremony may be as elaborate or as simple as the couple desires, but is, legally
> speaking, meaningless.
>
> And the certificate itself, once validated, must invoke the exact same benefits and liabilities
> under the law regardless of the couple to whom the certificate was issued.
>
> I have no problem with that, either.
Yah, but they the states should change the name of the form they use from "marriage license" to
"civil union license" just to make clear what it is they're actually getting. I have no problem
relinquishing the word "marriage" to churches, so long as the gov't gives equal legal recognition to
everyone with a license of civil union. -Tock
T
tock
Guest
"James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:58:42 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
> <[email protected]>):
>
> > Some states allow non-clergy people to officiate at a marriage . . . In California, anyone can
> > pay $25 and get a permit to do one marriage. In Colorado, the couple can solemnize the
> > relationship themselves while filling out the marriage license.
> >
> > IMHO, though, states should stop calling what they do "marriage" because marriage is a religious
> > thing, and governments have no legitimate
business
> > doing religious things. Instead, every state ought to just do "civil unions" for everybody, and
> > instead of issuing "marriage licenses" they need to issue "civil union licenses." Then anyone
> > wanting a church to marry 'em can go to Jerry Falwell or at the local MCC (gay church) and
get
> > it done. Controversy over. Next crisis, please .
>
> Tock, you're a breath of fresh air in this endless discussion!
>
> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Thanks, I appreciate that . . . I think I'll see if there's a good deal on Charlie Chan flics on
eBay, I'm in such a good mood . . . --Tock
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:58:42 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
> <[email protected]>):
>
> > Some states allow non-clergy people to officiate at a marriage . . . In California, anyone can
> > pay $25 and get a permit to do one marriage. In Colorado, the couple can solemnize the
> > relationship themselves while filling out the marriage license.
> >
> > IMHO, though, states should stop calling what they do "marriage" because marriage is a religious
> > thing, and governments have no legitimate
business
> > doing religious things. Instead, every state ought to just do "civil unions" for everybody, and
> > instead of issuing "marriage licenses" they need to issue "civil union licenses." Then anyone
> > wanting a church to marry 'em can go to Jerry Falwell or at the local MCC (gay church) and
get
> > it done. Controversy over. Next crisis, please .
>
> Tock, you're a breath of fresh air in this endless discussion!
>
> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Thanks, I appreciate that . . . I think I'll see if there's a good deal on Charlie Chan flics on
eBay, I'm in such a good mood . . . --Tock
L
Light Templar
Guest
"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Light Templar wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Light Templar, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> <[email protected]>, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus
> >> >> >> 18:22)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Congratulations. You're welcome to your opinion. If you were a
> >church
> >> >> >preacher, you'd have the freedom not to perform a marriage ceremony
> >for
> >> >gays
> >> >> >and lesbians, and I'd cheerfully support your right not to do so.
In
> >> >fact,
> >> >> >I'd excoriate gays and lesbians who criticised you for exercising
your
> >> >> >rights not to marry them, then we could trot down to the local
greasy
> >> >spoon
> >> >> >and I'd buy you breakfast and we could have a lively chat.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But when a gay couple want to have their relationship recognized
the
> >same
> >> >> >way as straight couples, the issue concerns only government
agencies,
> >and
> >> >> >not religious organizations.
> >> >>
> >> >> God has given us the duty of governing ourselves.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So go govern yourself, and leave others to govern themselves.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >But let me ask you this . . . If you want other people to abide by Leviticus 18:22, would
> >> >> >you
also
> >say
> >> >> >that people should abide by Leviticus 20:13, which says that gay
> >people
> >> >have
> >> >> >to be put to death? If not, why should people abide by some parts of the Bible and not
> >> >others?
> >> >> >--Just curious . . . --Tock
> >> >>
> >> >> >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
> >woman,
> >> >both of them
> >> >> >have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
> >their
> >> >> >blood shall be upon them.
> >> >>
> >> >> God has also given us behavioral guidelines.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Which are not relevant to the legal issues.
> >> >
> >> >> judgement of God?
> >> >
> >> >It's not your place to punish anyone.
> >> >
> >> Right. I'm not in the government. Are you?
> >
> >It's not the government's place to punish anyone that hasn't committed a crime.
>
No, it is not.
news:[email protected]...
> Light Templar wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Light Templar, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> <[email protected]>, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus
> >> >> >> 18:22)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Congratulations. You're welcome to your opinion. If you were a
> >church
> >> >> >preacher, you'd have the freedom not to perform a marriage ceremony
> >for
> >> >gays
> >> >> >and lesbians, and I'd cheerfully support your right not to do so.
In
> >> >fact,
> >> >> >I'd excoriate gays and lesbians who criticised you for exercising
your
> >> >> >rights not to marry them, then we could trot down to the local
greasy
> >> >spoon
> >> >> >and I'd buy you breakfast and we could have a lively chat.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But when a gay couple want to have their relationship recognized
the
> >same
> >> >> >way as straight couples, the issue concerns only government
agencies,
> >and
> >> >> >not religious organizations.
> >> >>
> >> >> God has given us the duty of governing ourselves.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So go govern yourself, and leave others to govern themselves.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >But let me ask you this . . . If you want other people to abide by Leviticus 18:22, would
> >> >> >you
also
> >say
> >> >> >that people should abide by Leviticus 20:13, which says that gay
> >people
> >> >have
> >> >> >to be put to death? If not, why should people abide by some parts of the Bible and not
> >> >others?
> >> >> >--Just curious . . . --Tock
> >> >>
> >> >> >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
> >woman,
> >> >both of them
> >> >> >have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
> >their
> >> >> >blood shall be upon them.
> >> >>
> >> >> God has also given us behavioral guidelines.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Which are not relevant to the legal issues.
> >> >
> >> >> judgement of God?
> >> >
> >> >It's not your place to punish anyone.
> >> >
> >> Right. I'm not in the government. Are you?
> >
> >It's not the government's place to punish anyone that hasn't committed a crime.
>
No, it is not.
M
Matt
Guest
>>It's not the government's place to punish anyone that hasn't committed a crime.
>
> governments job to impose the death penalty upon convicted murders.
Maybe I should pay your house a visit and make sure that every part of your life is in accordance to
your fairy tales.
Matt
>
> governments job to impose the death penalty upon convicted murders.
Maybe I should pay your house a visit and make sure that every part of your life is in accordance to
your fairy tales.
Matt
N
No One
Guest
Matt <[email protected]> writes:
> btw, I actually prefer the literal translation:
>
> Leviticus 18:22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
You mean it is cool as long as you avoid the missionary position, which is the only way a male
fundie is supposed to lie with a woman?
> btw, I actually prefer the literal translation:
>
> Leviticus 18:22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
You mean it is cool as long as you avoid the missionary position, which is the only way a male
fundie is supposed to lie with a woman?
H
Howd E . Doodat
Guest
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:32:00 GMT, Letao <[email protected]>
wrote:
>It's not the words, marriage or civil union, that get them upset. They're upset because they have
>to share them with their fellow citizens. The fags are icky. They don't even want to listen to the
>arguments put forth in court:
"Icky"? The fags are "ICKY"???
He..hehe..hehee...heeheeheh You are SO cute!!!
wrote:
>It's not the words, marriage or civil union, that get them upset. They're upset because they have
>to share them with their fellow citizens. The fags are icky. They don't even want to listen to the
>arguments put forth in court:
"Icky"? The fags are "ICKY"???
He..hehe..hehee...heeheeheh You are SO cute!!!
T
tock
Guest
"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote
> Are there any adults here in the NG's? I'm getting so bored by these teeny bopper whiggerized
> faggots I think I'll go wath TV.
"Whiggerized?" What is that? --Tock
> Are there any adults here in the NG's? I'm getting so bored by these teeny bopper whiggerized
> faggots I think I'll go wath TV.
"Whiggerized?" What is that? --Tock