 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) I'm a little lost on the pronouns here--does "they" refer to the people getting married and/or the people performing/solemnizing those marriages? My understanding is that the DOMA frees states from the obligation to recognize same-sex (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Sorry. I was referring to those performing the marriages. California's Prop 22 specifically bans same-sex marriage! I mean, what the hey? (...) This is the problem. Nothing seems to matter-- federal law or state law. Both are in effect and yet (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Oh. Yeah, I guess it's pretty clear: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Well, in that case, I applaud Mayor Newsom for defying a bogus, descriminatory law! (...) Hmm. "Civil Right to marry" might have (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Here is his justification: (URL) I find this so disingenuous! "Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause..." What about the rest of the CA Constitution? Upholding all of (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Which doesn't mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition. That's the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta admire their courage. (...) What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) What courage? Newsom hasn't even been arrested for disobeying the law! I think I might come to California and steal your LEGO Pirate collection and expect equal treatment Newsom is getting under the law-- namely the law looking the other way. (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Yet. Courage is standing up for something you believe in the face of the consequences - that the other side has turned out too gutless to do anything about it doesn't change that. I (...) Let me introduce you to my counter-argument: Winchester (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) lol, But -->Bruce<-- I would have expected a little snickersnee from you! Nonetheless, Kewl-- does it still fire, and more importantly: do your Liberal buddies know you own a gun;-) (...) lol I would have said Massachusetts, long before (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Works fine - actually, I had no idea what model it was until I just looked. I presumed it was some thing my grandfather got in the 60's - which he may have, but by it's serial number it is actually 100 years old (1904). Dang. Snickersnee? (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I've got a bolo tie... (...) I read that too early in my life-- never got it. (...) lol Just rented that to watch with my son a while back (catching him up on all of the classics:-) (...) lol If you are going to lob a fat one over the plate, (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Terry Prosper
|
| | | | (...) That's precisely the problem. You are a bigot and narrow-minded, only, you can't understand that fact and therefore, you think you are not and that everyone else is wrong. You compare Gay marriages to brother-sister marriages and group (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Merely because I think I'm right doesn't make me narrow-minded or a bigot. You think that you're right and I'm wrong.... As far as accusing me of thinking that everybody else is wrong, well I think that you have me confused with Dave! :-) (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Oh, give me a frelling break! The world is not coming to an end because 50% of marriages fail, and the world won't come to an end if gays are allowed to *marry*. The society is {not} based on marriage. The Nuclear Family is a farce and a (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
