posted
no matter who has a license to practice whatever.
Personally, it's none of my business what sort of sex life you have or with whom you share it and I'd appreciate it if you would keep it to yourself, no matter what some religio-centric officials say.
posted
I tend to agree with you bdgee. To me, there's a whole different set of criteria that I use to determine if I want to associate with someone, who they sleep with isn't one of them. However, we just had some lesbians move in next door to us and I have to admit, I wanna know the details!
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bdgee- I tend to agree. Public displays of affection (PDA's) are at best naseous and at worst offensive. Thank you for bringing attention to this serious issue.
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'morning after pill' may finally put a stop to the increasing number of idiots who feel that they have the right to tell others what they can do with their own bodies.
Good riddance, I say.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
JW's definition of a lib is anyone with ideas he has difficulties with.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Justice Dept. Official to Be Questioned in Tobacco Case Federal Judge Rules That McCallum Must Answer to Group Seeking Records on Department's Conduct
Associated Press Friday, June 2, 2006; Page A20
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum Jr. must undergo questioning in a lawsuit by a nonprofit group seeking records about the Justice Department's conduct in a landmark case against the tobacco industry.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued last year after the department ignored the testimony of one of its own witnesses in the tobacco trial and reduced the amount the Bush administration is seeking from the tobacco industry from $130 billion to $10 billion.
CREW said the department has failed to produce a single responsive document to demands for information under the Freedom of Information Act.
posted
How is a marriage license going to be kept private? Isn't it a matter of public record? That's all I care about. The rest of the stuff, privacy of there own home, insurance, etc. I could care less about.
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's a matter of public record, not religious record.
It's a place that religion needs to learn to respect and stop declaring theirs.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religous people are a part of the public no? You are asking a large portion of the public to disregard their beliefs and let something be officially endorsed that they do not agree with.
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was your marriage endorsed by me? Funny, I don't recall getting the notice in the mail.
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: When you say why can't we allow people to keep things private.... how is a marriage endorsed by the public considered private?
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Stop avoiding the fact that you are determined to ignore the Constitution when what you want is a law passed that defines marriage with respect to your own religious bigotry.
"Congress shall make no law respecting....."
[ August 02, 2006, 16:28: Message edited by: bdgee ]
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the word I'm looking for Gordo... not endorsed but..... meaning verified by a public employee. I can't think of what word I am looking for. Who signs the damn marriage license? County Recorder?
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The constitution says nothing about homosexual marriage. How am I ignoring it? But while were on the subject..... does the constitution say anything about relatives getting married?
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but discrimination is unconstitutional.
In some cases, gay couples wishing to be married have taken their case to court. In one of the first cases, in 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals as a class were being discriminated against by their inability to marry. Under the Vermont Constitution, such discrimination was not permitted. The Court directed the state legislature to create an institution with all the same rights and privileges of marriage. Thus, civil union was born. The Vermont legislature made a new institution that resembled marriage in all ways except in name. For all intents and purposes, when a couple joined in civil union is in Vermont, they are to be treated as though married.
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: The constitution says nothing about homosexual marriage.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With a private marriage, my records are the same as yours. The main difference is that, with mine, you will need a court order to see them.
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: You can be legally married without filing with the county recorder? Don't you have to apply for a marriage license?
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No constitutional amendment needed guys. This is good enough for me:
Virginia is one of at least six states voting on a constitutional ban on same-sex unions this fall. Voters in 20 states already have already approved such amendments, most of them overwhelmingly. Twenty-five other states forbid same-sex marriage by statutes.
Let the states decide.
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no mention in the Constitution of marriage.
It does not state that there is "gay Marriage" and it does not specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage, so long as law is concerned, is a contract between the participants and to declare that only a specific sort of person may have the right to participatein a contract is discrimination.
You are NOT required to marry either a person of different gender or one of similar gender. You are not required to marry at all.
At the same time, you are not required to even recognize the marriage of people, except as it is a function of law.
So you may ignore the marriage of a pair of lesbians, so long as you do not expect the Government to do so, since that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment, which would anmount to acting so as to respect a religious belief.
Of course, they may ignore your marriage too.
Serves you right!
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
