Dear Mary...

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:39:01 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

As long as both parties can legally sign the certificate, or make a
mark witnessed by a court official.

Don't be silly. If I can serve the sheep for dinner without it's consent I
can certainly marry it without consent.

That's not the way the laws are.

Face it. Gay marriage is going to be legal in at least one sate on
May 17.

Gays are free to marry in every state now.

I shall rephrase, because you are dense. As of May 17th, Same-sex
marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

That's not the way the laws are.


Try to keep up. We're talking about changing the laws.



I shall rephrase, because you are dense.


That's no way to talk to your teacher.



As of May 17th, Same-sex
marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.


Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

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


"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

As long as both parties can legally sign the certificate, or make a
mark witnessed by a court official.


Don't be silly. If I can serve the sheep for dinner without it's consent I
can certainly marry it without consent.


Perhaps that is wishful thinking on your part?

-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)

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



(snip)




As of May 17th, Same-sex
marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.


Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.



"Marriage requires people of the same race" was a mantra heard prior to the
overturn of the miscregation laws...

The definition of marriage has changed in the United States. It is likely to
change again.

Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get married is
beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right says we have to protect the
santity of marriage when 50% of all marriages between a man and a woman end up
in divorce here in the United States.

-Tom

-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)

"Replacement_Tommel" wrote in
message ...

Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex
get married is beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right
says we have to protect the santity of marriage when 50% of all
marriages between a man and a woman end up in divorce here in
the United States.


It's not that it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get married,
it's just that it's impossible, and I find it amusing that there are people
that don't understand that.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message

As of May 17th, Same-sex
marriages will be legal in Massachusetts.

Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.

Not in Massachusetts beginning March 17.

People in the State House have been attempting to
create language for a constitutional amendment to
define marriage in traditional terms, but no go yet.

Of course, this will surely end up in the Supreme
Court where I'm really not certain what the outcome
will be.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Not in Massachusetts beginning March 17.


Yes, even in Massachusetts.

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


"Replacement_Tommel" wrote in
message ...

Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex
get married is beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right
says we have to protect the santity of marriage when 50% of all
marriages between a man and a woman end up in divorce here in
the United States.


It's not that it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get married,
it's just that it's impossible, and I find it amusing that there are people
that don't understand that.


IIRC there have been same-sex marriages in Holland for quite sometime now... of
course, some bigots in this country thought it was "impossible" for whites to
marry blacks because they considered blacks to be animals instead of humans - is
that your line of thinking on why same sex marriages are "impossible?"

-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)

Replacement_Tommel wrote:
||| In article . net,
||| Steven P.
|||| McNicoll says...
|||
|||
||| "Replacement_Tommel" wrote
||| in message ...
||||
|||| Why some think it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex
|||| get married is beyond me, and I find it amusing when the far right
|||| says we have to protect the santity of marriage when 50% of all
|||| marriages between a man and a woman end up in divorce here in
|||| the United States.
||||
|||
||| It's not that it's a "problem" if two people of the same sex get
||| married, it's just that it's impossible, and I find it amusing that
||| there are people that don't understand that.
|||
||
|| IIRC there have been same-sex marriages in Holland for quite
|| sometime now... of course, some bigots in this country thought it
|| was "impossible" for whites to marry blacks because they considered
|| blacks to be animals instead of humans - is that your line of
|| thinking on why same sex marriages are "impossible?"

I'm surprised this debate is still going on in this thread. Stephen, as I
advised you earlier, let it go. Tom, if Stephen is going on the same as I,
it would be based on religious belief as outlayed in the Bible and not
really anything prejudicial in comparison/similarity to what you posted
above, and no am not going to provide any more references than I already
have since the one I gave has them in it. However, I'm just assuming that
is where his argument is stemming from that it is "impossible". There is
separation of Church and State but how far into reality is that?
Legislators in my home state or pressing harder to ban these arrangements (I
shall not refer to them as marriages, sorry). In any event, this is one of
those debates that will go on and on. Both sides have made valid points,
opinions, worthy of consideration; but ultimately, the decision rests with
the voters and elected officials, doesn't it? Stephen, let it go.

I have a simple curiosity question, though. Should this issue really be
discussed in military groups, where there are AD members posting, since the
military as this "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? Doesn't it kind of
infringe upon that policy, even if it is indirectly so? I'm not trying to
argue, but am really curious about it, do you know?

[Raining here, smells so good, sleeping weather, a little chilly though.]

"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:TBq5c.17461$1p.306216@attbi_s54...

Both sides have made valid points,
opinions, worthy of consideration; but ultimately, the decision
rests with
the voters and elected officials, doesn't it?

No, the decision does not rest with the voters and elected officials,
nor should it IMHO. Individual rights in a society should not be
subject to votes and elected officials. For example, Brown vs Board
of Education, which was decided (properly, IMHO) by the courts. No
smiley face here.