BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA

C J Campbell wrote:
"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

Bush's attempts to legislate morality.

Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040224-2.html

This appears to be an attempt to prevent others from legislating
morality, or simply imposing their version of morality from the
judicial bench.


No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else choose
to marry.

This is but one example. From
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...62/ai_86048070

"In a related matter, the Bush administration proposed on February 26 a
total global ban on all experimentation in the field of cloning. Making no
distinction between therapeutic and reproductive research, the
administration's position has caused outrage among scientists. A
spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declared,
"It's bad enough that the administration would seek to impose its views on
the American people, let alone the entire world."
Bush has also asked for legislation that would pour millions of federal
dollars into abstinence-only education and efforts to encourage single
mothers to marry regardless of the circumstances--maneuvers which would have
his personal sectarian views on morality established into civic law. In his
State of the Union address, he expressed pride in the liberation of women in
Afghanistan; however, by announcing these initiatives, he hypocritically is
attempting to limit women's rights at home.

And these aren't Bush's only forays into the realm of public morality. His
administration previously challenged assisted suicide, put a hold on
international family planning funding, tried to remove birth control
coverage from federal employees' insurance plans, restricted stem cell
research, ended the Labor Department's "Equal Pay Matters" program, skipped
the international conference on racism, refused to continue the presidential
tradition of proclaiming Gay Pride Month, and passed legislation effectively
violating privacy and other freedoms."

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else
choose to marry.


It places no restrictions on who anybody can marry.

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:
"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

Bush's attempts to legislate morality.

Oh? I suppose you could suggest what some of these attempts were?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040224-2.html

This appears to be an attempt to prevent others from legislating
morality, or simply imposing their version of morality from the
judicial bench.


No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else
choose
to marry.

As a Mormon, I find blaming this view on Bush as extremely laughable.

In article , John Harlow says...
No, it is a desire to control an individual's choice as to who they can
marry. It's none of Bush's damn business who I, you or anybody else choose
to marry.

Then I suppose it's OK for someone to choose to marry young boys as NAMBLA
supports, or young girls ,or 2 women or 10 women or your favorite sheep
BAAAbara or a goat or your Sister etc. I wonder just who's business it is to
prevent those marriages or are all those marriages OK in your eyes ? Do you have
any boundaries? and if so why is it any of your damn business?

Chuck S

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

Bush's attempts to legislate morality.

What attempts?

So the marriage Amendment is a law of morality? Funny I think of it as not
allowing the Federal Courts to make a national law saying we have to change
most churches religious beliefs. Seperation of church and state is not in
the Constitution, however it does say Congress shall pass no law
establishing religion. If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
that not establishing religion...and one that clearly a majority of
religious people do not agree with? I have nothing against 2 gays having a
civil union, but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs
and no government has the right to tell me that I have to accept it as
religion. But that is what the liberal courts intend on doing. To make a
person of religion accept an employee as married to a person of the same sex
is a violation of the biz owners right to practice his religion as he sees
fit. There is more to the issue than a gay's rights, there are everyones
rights to be considered.
And Constitutionally no one has the right to infringe on my religion, and
that IS what liberal courts and the Ted Kennedy's of the country intend on
doing.
Speaking of Kennedy, is it just me or what...but how do the people of MS
continue to vote a traitor "commie" (Kerry) and a man who should have went
to prison for manslaughter ( Kennedy) back into office time after time. Bush
can't make a decision on morals.....but it is ok for MA to make the decision
for the rest of the country?
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

Bush's attempts to legislate morality.

What attempts?

W P Dixon wrote:

but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs

So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others whom
they may marry?

Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns
the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it
as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare
legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended?

- Andrew

Well Andrew,
The point of my entire presentation was who is the government to intrude
on religion. The judges and congress do not tell people they can not wear
their headscarves, but however there have been rulings that say a teacher
can not wear a cross necklace in school...but the Star of David is ok. See
the point, it is christianity that is under attack. And sorry but I do not
know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok. The Holy Bible and the
Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a
minority tell the majority what the law will be....
So just trying to get you and anyone else to see there is alot more to
the issue than G. W. Bush trying to play morales police. He may just be
trying to stop a tyrannical judical system from doing what he has been
accused of. Read our Constitution the Judical Branch has NO AUTHORITY to
make laws but they insist on doing so. It is time to put the Constitution
ahead of the courts.
As for my religion I am an Independent, but the Bible I read is the KFV.
I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you
can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights of
freedom of religion? See the entire point is "It is not just a gay person's
rights at stake...it is the rights of every religious person that actually
believes the Bible." And in this country the majority is supposed to make
the laws. Dilemma isn't it!
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
W P Dixon wrote:

but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs

So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others
whom
they may marry?

Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns
the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it
as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare
legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended?

- Andrew

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
See
the point, it is christianity that is under attack.

Oooook...

W P Dixon wrote:

And sorry but I do not
know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok.

So? Why should "marriage" be defined by *any* one religion? Or should
"marriage" be defined as any religion permits? That is, should we permit
multiple marriages in the US as permitted by some religions?

The Holy Bible and the
Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a
minority tell the majority what the law will be....

That's almost correct. The Bill of Rights, along with other measures, is
designed to prevent (as much as possible) a Tyranny of the Majority. W/o
this type of protection, we'd have nothing but glorified mob rule. If the
majority (let's say for the sake of argument: european descendants) decided
that a minority (again for the sake of argument: african descendants)
should work for free, then that would be permitted...absent rules which
limit the majority's ability to define law.

[It's slightly more accurate to say that this is defining what the law
cannot be, as opposed to what it can be.]

[...]
I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you
can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights
of freedom of religion?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Should all people be prevented from doing
what is prohibited by your religion?

- Andrew