On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:44:40 -0800, RobertVB  wrote:

>In article ,
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:22:03 -0800, RobertVB  wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:11:04 -0800, RobertVB
 wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >In article ,
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Where in there can same gender marriages do
anything that opposite
>> >> >> >gender ones can not?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> You're so fucking stupid. Apparently you enjoy
proving it to  of
>> >> >> people too.
>> >> >
>> >> >No answer to the question?  Well a troll wouldn't
want to directly
>> >> >answer anything?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >-- 
>> >> >> >"The state's protracted denial of equal
protection cannot be justified
>> >> >> >simply
>> >> >> >because such constitutional violation has
become traditional,"
>> >> >> >                                -California
Superior Court Judge
>> Richard
>> >> >> Kramer
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> But none of the homos who married in San
Francisco are MARRIED
>> >> >> regardless of what one man's opinion is. 
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course they are married - they just don't have
access to the civil
>> >> >contract.  Marriage comes from beyond government -
government can't
>> >> >bestow it.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Does that piss you off or are
>> >> >> you too stupid to understand that?
>> >> >
>> >> >Its too bad that America has turned its back on
virtually all of its
>> >> >founding principles as of late.  Maybe that will turn
around or it will
>> >> >continue its decline in to irrelevancy.  As long as
there are free
>> >> >places in the world the current state of America just
makes me more sad
>> >> >than pissed.
>> >> 
>> >> No, we now have an admission from your side (the cheap
seats) that no
>> >> laws saying that marriage is valid between one man and one woman
>> >> discriminate against homosexuals because the SCOUTUS has
not declared
>> >> then so. Don't you feel better now?
>> >> 
>> >> Look:
>> >> 
>> >> "...the original claim that one class is allowed 
>> >> something that the other class is denied is *still* 100% 
>> >> false; unless of course the law has been declared 
>> >> unconstitutional by the courts..." 
-"Robin" 
>> >> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:09:23 GMT,
>> >> Message-ID:
>> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.227.185.80
>> >
>> >Well since this isn't a 'class' issue but an individual citzen's rights
>> >issue its largely irrelevant.  It is individuals that are being denied
>> >license to the civil contract solely on the gender of their prospective
>> >cosignee.  Since access to the contract is tied to a fundamental right
>> >all citizens have the civil government must have a strong justification
>> >for any limitations they have on access to this civic feature.
>> 
>> >No one has yet been able to produce such a reason.
>> 
>> No matter how thin you spread your homophile bull shit it remains bull
>> shit and is quite easy to identify. Many states have specifically said
>> in their Constitutions that legal marriage can only be between one 
>> man and one woman (and many more have amendments in their pending
>> legislation to do the same.)
>
>And yes that is the only way you can make it legal - but putting a
>special  exception  in the state constitution. Which they could put in
>for anything.  That is a demonstration of the decline of our nation and
>its losing sight of its found values.  These states have put unequal
>access to government in their very constitutions!

Not really. What they have done is told a whining minority who demands
special rights, privileges and unquestioned tolerance based on nothing
more than their perverted sexual orientation, "No, we won't be
badgered into doing what we don't have to do."


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 4:59:05 AM ---