Dear Mary...

"Replacement_Tommel" wrote in
message ...
In article , Michael Wise
says...

In article ,
Douglas Berry wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

"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[i]
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.

-Tom

Didn't Clinton's masterpiece enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act do an
end run around the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to
forestall just this eventuality? I wonder if the DOMA has been tested in
court?
Take care,
--
Ajax Telamon
"The belief in the possibility
of a short decisive war appears
to be one of the most ancient
and dangerous of human illusions."
- Robert Lynd

In article ,
wrote:



Why use the term "gay" when talking about homosexuals? They are not
"gay",
they are lesbians and homosexuals.

Marriage is not appropriate for homosexuals.


As long as you are wordsmithing, then I take it you approve of lesbian
marriage?

In article ,
wrote:



No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
and no "same sex" "marriages exit.


With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.

In article , Michael Wise
says...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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

Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
we're both men.

I am being discriminated against because of my sex.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

In article ,
Douglas Berry wrote:

In article , Michael Wise
says...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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

Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
we're both men.

I am being discriminated against because of my sex.


As a male, you are free to marry a female...so you are not being being
discrimnated by gender/sex. Now if you decide you want to marry another
male and are denied....it is based on your sexual preference.

--Mike

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Say I want to marry my boyfriend. The clerk says I can't, because
we're both men.

I am being discriminated against because of my sex.


No you're not.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
and no "same sex" "marriages exit.


With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.

My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.

Al Minyard

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
and no "same sex" "marriages exit.


With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.

My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.

Al Minyard

Nice change of subject. It doesn't recognize sexuality of any type. By
your logic, there's no recognition of heterosexual marriage -- or any
other type of marriage.

Following your interesting logic, there's no recognition of
Klinefelter's syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency with failure of
Mullerian development, prostatic cancer, ectopic pregnancy,
heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, hyperemesis
gravidarum, gamete in-vitro transfer, the missionary position or any
other position, masturbation, androgens, mineralocorticoids, estrogens,
progestins, etc. All of these, I take it, are prohibited.

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

OK, you've reached delusional status now.


How so?



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


3,500 invalid marriage licenses.



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.



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.

"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.