Thrown out of an FBO...

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Let's try, on both sides, to avoid posts that consist exclusively of
personal taunts. Such posts do nothing to advance the discussion.

--Gary



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

Huh?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Bigot! You never ___! You said ____! Bigot! You haven't spent time in
the
midwes to hear that it's full of bigots!"

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

Well, let's see here.

In the past month or 2 you've declared your bigotry towards government
employees, unions, union employees, charter pilots and charter owners. I
may
have left a few out, but that's CRS for ya.

Where was the declaration? Don't be afraid to back up your statement.

Google it. I'm not wasting my time trying to prove anything to you.



I'd be willing to bet I can throw in homosexuals and gay married couples.

Bet's on. Where is your cite?

Who needs a cite to make a bet? Jeez...are you blonde?

(did that **** you off?)

Anyway (and here's something I'll bet will never come out of your
keyboard-or J's), I was wrong about that. He surprised me. Generally, the
type of ignorance he's been displying didn't indicate to me a developed
enough mind.


mike

P.S. Apologies to all blondes. Just trying, vainly no doubt, to make a
point.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
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?

Why do you assume the reason is fear, when I just articulated (and you did
not rebut) an alternative reason?

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?

First, it is already a right in Massachusetts by a legitimate process,
namely the judicial enforcement of constitutional (in this case, the state
constitution) guarantees of equality. There is a reason that the judicial
branch is part of the checks and balances of our system of government. It
does not lose legitimacy just because you disagree with a particular
decision.

Second, as I mentioned, democracy is distinct from tyranny of the majority.
Democracy includes protection of equality before the law even if the
majority would like to abridge that equality. Would you consider it
appropriate to hold a referendum on whether to require Jews to wear yellow
stars, if thousands of people signed a petition to amend the constitution
accordingly? Would you object if legislators used lawful parliamentary
maneuvering to prevent *that* amendment from being put to a popular vote?

--Gary

Used to be, I could talk to anybody-even a republican.

Since Bush Jr., as soon as sombody declares themselves a republican, the
conversation's over. That's one thing I really thank Bush Jr. for. He's made
it crystal clear what his party's about.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

And I might look him up to say hi.even though he sounds like a
republican.

Wow, how very accepting you are! You might dare to say hi to someone who
doesn't mirror your own point of view.

I guess that is the true "tolerance" of a self-proclaimed liberal.

Yep.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

I'd say he's lost potentially many. I know I wouldn't waste my money
there.

Yeah I could tell by your comments that you are too intolerant of someone
who
has other views.

mike regish wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

Well, let's see here.

In the past month or 2 you've declared your bigotry towards government
employees, unions, union employees, charter pilots and charter owners. I
may
have left a few out, but that's CRS for ya.

Where was the declaration? Don't be afraid to back up your statement.

Google it. I'm not wasting my time trying to prove anything to you.

That would be hard to do when there is nothing to google for. You made the
statement, you cannot support it with facts, and your only defense is to tell
someone else to try supporting your statement.





I'd be willing to bet I can throw in homosexuals and gay married couples.

Bet's on. Where is your cite?

Who needs a cite to make a bet? Jeez...are you blonde?

What if I was? Are you? You sure like toss around your own stereotypes after
criticizing others.



(did that **** you off?)

No. But I seem to think you wish that you did "**** me off." You're real nice.



Anyway (and here's something I'll bet will never come out of your
keyboard-or J's), I was wrong about that. He surprised me. Generally, the
type of ignorance

Actually you are the one displaying ignorance, you made defamatory claims that
you cannot even back up.

he's been displying didn't indicate to me a developed
enough mind.

Oh, ok so now you have to attack someone's mind. Another dose of ad-hominem
attacks from the one who calls himself "progressive." I'm shocked!

mike regish wrote:

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.

How 'liberal' of you. Just spew out personal insults and ad-hominem attacks.
Maybe then they could become true, you don't need any facts.

mike regish wrote:

Why. Does that somehow threaten YOUR marriage?

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
4. What's a "gay married couple"?


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.

Who said it did? Non-sequitur.

mike regish wrote:

Used to be, I could talk to anybody-even a republican.

Since Bush Jr., as soon as sombody declares themselves a republican, the
conversation's over. That's one thing I really thank Bush Jr. for. He's made
it crystal clear what his party's about.

Apparently what his party's about is getting you to show your true colors: such
powerful narrow-minded intolerance for others that have other points of view
that you cannot even communicate.