Thrown out of an FBO...

mike regish wrote:

Just what makes you think this is even an issue the people should vote on?

Because people participated in the democratic process, collected the
prerequisite signatures, followed the constitutional process, and petitioned the
government to do what the constitution called for.


Since when do people get to vote on basic rights?

Have you not heard of the Constitution?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"mike regish" wrote:

One of my daughter's best friends has 3 dads-2 of whom are married. And I
went to the wedding of one of my wife's coworkers and friends who married
her girlfriend.

You live in Taxachusetts?

Ya think one of these days the citizens can actually vote on the issue,

That would be inappropriate, for the same reason that it would be wrong to
launch a referendum on whether interracial couples should be prohibited from
marrying, or whether Jews should be required to wear yellow stars.

Democracy is not the same as absolute tyranny of the majority. In a
democracy, equality before the law enjoys constitutional protections that
cannot be overridden by a majority vote.

(In addition to being inappropriate, a referendum on the issue would not
change the law: a solid majority of Massachusetts citizens and legislators
support same-sex marriage rights.)

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

One of my daughter's best friends has 3 dads-2 of whom are married. And I
went to the wedding of one of my wife's coworkers and friends who married
her girlfriend.

You live in Taxachusetts?

Ya think one of these days the citizens can actually vote on the issue,

That would be inappropriate

You and Mike assume facts not in evidence, i.e., that sexual perversion is
a basic right.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"mike regish" wrote:

One of my daughter's best friends has 3 dads-2 of whom are married. And I
went to the wedding of one of my wife's coworkers and friends who married
her girlfriend.

You live in Taxachusetts?

Ya think one of these days the citizens can actually vote on the issue,

That would be inappropriate, for the same reason that it would be wrong to
launch a referendum on whether interracial couples should be prohibited from
marrying, or whether Jews should be required to wear yellow stars.

Democracy is not the same as absolute tyranny of the majority. In a
democracy, equality before the law enjoys constitutional protections that
cannot be overridden by a majority vote.

(In addition to being inappropriate, a referendum on the issue would not
change the law: a solid majority of Massachusetts citizens and legislators
support same-sex marriage rights.)

Then why are they so afraid of following the constitutional process? If this
is truly a right, and not an activist court's proclamations, why not make it
legimately so by the voice of the people?

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:


4. What's a "gay married couple"?


Well, I'll take that one on, Jay, by asking in return -- and in
seriousness -- what's a "married couple"?

If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples. I'll be
glad to listen to arguments on all sides of that issue; but I'll only be
interested in or willing to hear arguments based on "civic" or "civil"
(as in civilian) factors -- married couples should get these tax breaks
or otherwise for the following "civic" reasons -- but *no religious
based arguments whatsoever*, because in a democracy I'm not willing to
have the laws that govern me be determined by anyone else's religious
beliefs.

If on the other hand it's an essentially *religion-based* status,
determined by whether or not some religion has in the eyes of God"
married this couple, well, then fine, no problem at all -- except that
that makes marriage an essentially private, personal religious matter,
which should have absolutely no legal standing or recognition *anywhere
in law, or in legal or civic matters* (any more than someone should get
a lowered bus fare or a tax deduction because they took Communion last
Sunday).

[Or, on the other hand, if you want to argue that married couples should
get these special legal rights because some church married them -- well,
you'd better be prepared for churches that are quite willing to marry
gay couples.]

AES wrote:
In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:


4. What's a "gay married couple"?


Well, I'll take that one on, Jay, by asking in return -- and in
seriousness -- what's a "married couple"?

If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples. I'll be
glad to listen to arguments on all sides of that issue; but I'll only be
interested in or willing to hear arguments based on "civic" or "civil"
(as in civilian) factors -- married couples should get these tax breaks
or otherwise for the following "civic" reasons -- but *no religious
based arguments whatsoever*, because in a democracy I'm not willing to
have the laws that govern me be determined by anyone else's religious
beliefs.

If on the other hand it's an essentially *religion-based* status,
determined by whether or not some religion has in the eyes of God"
married this couple, well, then fine, no problem at all -- except that
that makes marriage an essentially private, personal religious matter,
which should have absolutely no legal standing or recognition *anywhere
in law, or in legal or civic matters* (any more than someone should get
a lowered bus fare or a tax deduction because they took Communion last
Sunday).

[Or, on the other hand, if you want to argue that married couples should
get these special legal rights because some church married them -- well,
you'd better be prepared for churches that are quite willing to marry
gay couples.]

It's amazing how political parties throw-up these wedge issues like gay
marriage or [Insert favorite stupid wedge issue here] that few in
mainstream America give a flip about. I could care less one way or
another about gay marriage. I'm not for or against, I just don't give
a sh#$. I think both the social conservative bible thumpers and the
liberal - head up there ass- progressives (fancy name for a socialist)
have managed to hijack the leadership of both the major political
parties in America. They are so way out of touch. Part of the problem
is Bush, Kerry, [Insert Candidate] all were born (or married to
someone) with silver spoons so far in the back of their mouths it
would take a crowbar to remove them. Why do we put up with these
people? The problem is they come from well off politically connected
families and go to select colleges where they get to know each other
and self select themselves for public office before they ever get out
of school. Most never have had a real job They don't represent
mainstream Americans at all. If there ever was a need for a new
moderate party/candidate to represent the middle class, or what's left
of it, it's now.

FlynCatfish

4. What's a "gay married couple"?

Well, I'll take that one on, Jay, by asking in return -- and in
seriousness -- what's a "married couple"?

If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples.

Um, well, that's like asking why people who don't own land can't sell
it. Or why folks who order food in a restaurant must pay for it. It's
a legal definition.

Marriage is a state that exists between a man and a woman. You can
have the same legal rights between two men, or two women, if you'd
like, but you'll have to come up with a new name for it. Call it
"frimage", or "shariage", or some other made-up word for it -- but the
word "marriage" is already taken.

This ain't a religious issue. I don't care who is screwing whom, as
long as it's behind closed doors. But you'll have to come up with a
new term. (And I believe the majority of voters agree with me, for
once.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples.

Marriage is a state that exists between a man and a woman. You can
have the same legal rights between two men, or two women, if you'd
like, but you'll have to come up with a new name for it.

Why? When we broadened marriage rights to include interracial couples, we
didn't have to come up with a new name for marriage. When we broadened
voting rights to include women, we didn't have to come up with a new name
for voting (even though voting had previously been regarded--for thousands
of years, in cultures throughout the world--as an inherently male activity).

Legal definitions evolve all the time. Why should they ossify instead? An as
an empirical fact, a growing number of nations (and portions of nations,
including the US) do define legal marriage without regard to the race,
religion, or gender of the participants.

--Gary

For further discussion, here is the exact wording of the recent referendum
in Wisconsin:
"Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide
that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall
not be valid or recognized in this state."



The Yes vote was 59%, the No vote was 41%.



While not clearly defining the word marriage to be between a man and a
woman, several other states referendums did just that according the CNN 2006
Votes website.



Jim

There's the key word...Evolve.

You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him, so
he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.

mike

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message

Legal definitions evolve all the time. Why should they ossify instead? An
as an empirical fact, a growing number of nations (and portions of
nations, including the US) do define legal marriage without regard to the
race, religion, or gender of the participants.

--Gary