Pilot's Political Orientation

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
.. .


How about a fight FOR gay marriage?




No need. Gays marry.

I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.
Good. Now maybe
we can get down to the real issue - that gay's don't automatically
receive the same rights
granted to conventional couples; ie the same inheritence rights, the
same rights of legal
guardianship, and the like.

Rich Lemert

"darwin smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.


Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with it.



Good. Now maybe
we can get down to the real issue - that gay's don't automatically
receive the same rights
granted to conventional couples; ie the same inheritence rights, the
same rights of legal
guardianship, and the like.


Gays have exactly the same rights as conventional couples.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:08:16 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.


Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

in Message-ID: .net you
wrote that gays marry.

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with
it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

in Message-ID: .net you
wrote that gays marry.


Yes. What's your point?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with
it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

in Message-ID: .net
you wrote that gays marry.


Yes. What's your point?

Sigh

Steven is claiming that gays marry people that are not of the same sex.
True in some cases, I suppose, but completely irrelevant.

Which he knows, of course.

It's just him playing his games. It avoids having to deal with the internal
inconsistency in an administration claiming to be for freedom also coming
out against the idea same-sex marriage...to the point of promoting the idea
of a constitutional ban.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...


It avoids having to deal with the internal
inconsistency in an administration claiming to be for freedom also coming
out against the idea same-sex marriage...to the point of promoting the
idea
of a constitutional ban.

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay marriage, they
should be. The main issue is the US Constitution. I got married in
Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states must recognize my marriage
and all things that naturally occur as a result of that marriage, such as
hospital visitation, benefits, etc. If California passes a law making gay
marriage legal then all 49 other states would have to recognize it. No way
in hell this will ever happen. Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other. The same principle applies with your drivers
license. Can you imagine what would happen if states didn't recognize other
states drivers licenses?

Newps wrote:

Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That would be unfortunate if made necessary, as enforcement always is. But
I'm still not clear on "the problem" you're seeing.

- Andrew

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay marriage,
they should be.

Why?

"Newps" wrote in message
...

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
marriage, they should be. The main issue is the US Constitution.
I got married in Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states
must recognize my marriage and all things that naturally occur as
a result of that marriage, such as hospital visitation, benefits, etc.
If California passes a law making gay marriage legal then all 49
other states would have to recognize it.


Well, then, if a state bans "same-sex marriage", then the other 49 states
will have to recognize it and this silly argument is over.

What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?