On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:03:42 -0800, RobertVB  wrote:

>In article ,
> wrote:
>
>> >   I have posted bill C-38 and asked you to show where it discriminates 
>> >against religionists.  You have been unwilling or unable to do so - 
>> >because the bill does NOT discriminate but you are a pathological lying 
>> >homophobe and have no actual facts to present.  Now you claim that bill 
>> >C-38 will "...discriminate against a whole class of
heterosexuals" yet 
>> >you have provided no proof.
>> 
>> 
>> You know very well what I'm talking about, moose, there are
>> heterosexuals in kanada who cannot marry other heterosexuals. All the
>> while there is NO RESTRICTION on homosexuals what so ever. Be aware
>> that I'll bring it up every time you talk about how fair and equal
>> "2.5 world kanada" treats it subjects.
>
>Hmmm here is the bill:
>
>1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.    
>
>2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to
>the exclusion of all others.    
>
>3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to
>refuse to perform marriages that  are not in accordance with their
>religious beliefs.    
>
>4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason
>only that the spouses are of  the same sex.  
>
>
>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.

>-- 
>"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. Does that piss you off or are
you too stupid to understand that?


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/19/05 3:59:04 AM ---