Dear Mary...

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.


They aren't. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

In article . net, Steven P.
McNicoll says...


"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.


They aren't. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.



The definition of marriage has changed before and will probably change once
again. Do you think the laws that forbade miscegenation were okay?

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
includes unions of humans and animals.


You've gotta be from Oklahoma.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

In article , Michael Wise says...[i]

In article ,
Replacement_Tommel wrote:


"Douglas Berry" In the US, marriages are handled by county
registars.
Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
"sex"...and not sexual preference.


Look up the full faith and credit clause in Art IV, Sec. 1 - all states must
recognize the legislative acts, public records (-i.e. Marriages legally
performed in that state), and judicial decisons in that state.


Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641 extrapolates on this.

In short, if a state allows gays to marry, ALL other sates must recognize it.

Go ahead, look it up.



First of all, that has nothing to do with Mr. Berry's claim and my
response to it concerning Article 1, Section 31 of the California State
Consititution.

Go ahead, look it up.


Secondly, since it is currently not legal in the state of California,
your entire point is moot. Please feel free to go ahead and look that up
as well. ; )


A California case that you should look up:

Perez v. Sharpe, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)

"Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by
the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition
of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means."

The issues raised in that case are not that disimmillar.

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:26:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
subject to redefinition from time to time.


Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
includes unions of humans and animals.

ONIONS, is it? Now you've gone too far. Oh. Wait.

nevermind....

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
.. .

*AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does.


Now you're catching on!



The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
subject to redefinition from time to time.


Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
includes unions of humans and animals.

What about negroes? I say, did you hear that fracas at the H Genome
project couple months ago? Where they wanted to reclassify chimps as
"human" and then shut up very quickly about it? Eh? Recall? 'Turns
out, guess what, te DNA warrants it! Know what I mean? wink

Grantland

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:22:19 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

OK, you've reached delusional status now.

How so?

Your refusla to see reality.

3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
Oregon started issuing them today.

3,500 invalid marriage licenses.

Legal in San Francisco County. There has been no court order
declaring them void.

And there is no law in Oregon about gay marriage, so the several
hundred marriages there are legal throughout the state.

Seattle is next, then Mass.

You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
marriages are a reality. Deal with it.

I have no reason to pout or whine about it, the fact remains that marriage
requires persons of the opposite so same-sex marriage is impossible. Deal
with that.

Except that in five states the courts have said otherwise.

I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
"because I said so."

You're finished with me? What did you think you were doing with me? I have
presented a cogent argument, you just do not understand the issue.

No, you haven't. You presented a "because I say so" argument.

Want to present an argument? Fine. *Why* does marriage require the
opposite genders? Give me concrete reasons.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:26:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
includes unions of humans and animals.

Can the sheep give informed consenst, either by signing its name or by
making a mark witnessed by a court officicial attesting that it
understands the obligations of marriage. Go look up the word
"consent." To be married one must be a consensting adult.

You can not be forced to marry.

You have to have either the legal status to sign a contract, or have
permission from a guardian and convince a court official that this is
what you really want.

Sheep fail on both counts.

Now, I know this is difficult dfor you, but we are discussing
relations because *adult humans*. No sheep. No 4 year olds. No
corpses. Living people who can give informed consenst in a legally
recognized manner.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Your refusla to see reality.


My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Can the sheep give informed consenst, either by signing its name or by
making a mark witnessed by a court officicial attesting that it
understands the obligations of marriage. Go look up the word
"consent." To be married one must be a consensting adult.


Not if I choose to define it otherwise.



You can not be forced to marry.

You have to have either the legal status to sign a contract, or have
permission from a guardian and convince a court official that this is
what you really want.

Sheep fail on both counts.

Now, I know this is difficult dfor you, but we are discussing
relations because *adult humans*. No sheep. No 4 year olds. No
corpses. Living people who can give informed consenst in a legally
recognized manner.


Is it only homosexuals that have the right to redefine marriage to their
liking?