 | | More Election Bad News?
|
|
Looks like Proposal 2, a state amendment banning all forms of homosexual unions will be passed in Michigan: (URL) don't get it. Can't we have the word 'marriage' stricken from all our laws and legalese and replaced with the term "civil union", open (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) I agree. Government has absolutly no business defining "marriage" be it hetero, homo, or anything else. -Orion (20 years ago, 23-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) That is such a simple and elegant solution to the whole debate. I was really hoping Kerry (or somebody!) would voice this opinion--it's such a simple, easy-to-make-sense-of position, compared to his (and others') "I am against letting gay (...) (20 years ago, 23-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Exactly right. As a Christain I can no longer place any respect on a government defined or endorsed marriage. And looking back I see that I never should have. A true marriage is a union before God, and it doesn't matter at all what the state (...) (20 years ago, 23-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) are pretty depressed about this. It's just a bad idea to legislate this way. (20 years ago, 23-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) What about this: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) IMO, we should tell religion to shut the heck up re: matters of legislation, and we should recognize homosexual marriage on the same footing as heterosexual marriage. If religious groups want to endorse only a certain kind of marital union, (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Licenses? Or just recognition of contracts? The state ought not to be granting licenses of this sort, merely recognizing contracts. (or in the case of non consenting or non adult, NOT recognizing) This is an example of the more general (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Oops. my use of "license" was imprecise. It definitely *should* be a matter of contract recognition rather than a granting of permission. Dave! (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Well, since the returns were suggesting that this is going to pass 2:1, it looks like this is a good time to bring this thread back into play. Michigan doesn't really have a reputation as a gay-friendly State (outside of Saugatuck, at least), (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) The whole license thing is probably, in part at least, a throwback to the days when you had to get blood tests to ensure blood-type compatibility before they'd allow you to get married. Ironically, that's an issue that wouldn't matter at all (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Given the sheer numbers represented by organized religion in this country, and how strongly many members feel about certain issues, you can shout it until you're blue in the face, but the only way it'll have any affect is to pass an ammendment (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Throwback? I'm pretty sure I had to get a blood test when I got married way back in the dark ages of 2000. The way I understood it was to make you aware of any Rh incompatibilities - which can be an still issue as far a having children (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) While I mostly agree with you Larry, are we ready to open this box? If we agree that government should not interfere with any type of "Union" are we ready to accept the full repercussions of that decision. The immediate effect would be the (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Hi Scott--haven't seen you in ot-debate for a while... You raise several points, so I'll try to address them in order: If three or ten or fifty people want to marry, why should this trouble me? This type of union may (or may not) be (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) Hahhahahahahahahahah...ahahahhaha ohhohohoheeeheheeegu...ghingmy... Admittedly, it's the state that most conservatives like to whine about because it is big and influential, but most liberal? Don't make me lau...oops, too late. :-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
|
(...) It’s the other way around, with Rh- mothers and Rh+ babies, since the Rh factor is a dominant trait, and an Rh+ mother cannot conceive an Rh- baby (barring extreme and unlikely genetic mutation, that is). (...) At present, only a tiny handful (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
