who cares about the Guard thing?

..... We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least
bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
Tom

Hell, that ain't all! The Episcopalians are appointing gay bishops!
It's the end of Christianity as we know it!

I think the following item pretty well sums up our outrage at that
development:

"The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront
to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's
founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, his wife Anne
Boleyn, his wife Jane Seymour, his wife Anne of Cleves, his wife
Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to
suffer through this assault on our traditional and sacred Christian
marriage."

vince

.....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least
bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:

....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least
bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
Tom

In Canada, we have been hearing all the arguments against gay marriages
for quite some time. The usual "it will cheapen marriage" to the latest
on how it will lead to incestuous marriages. A lot of nonsense in my
opinion. I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could feel threatened by
gay marriage.

Tim Lysyk

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...
....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing
our
fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at
least
bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
Tom

Quite frankly, I don't give a **** who gets married.

One can look at gay marriage from a romantic point of view, and say that
love is precious, and that anytime a couple is willing to commit to one
another- especially under such socially difficult circumstances- they should
face no obstacles.

One can also look at gay marriage from a political and religious viewpoint.
Historically the institution of marriage has been encouraged and supported,
and even controlled by the church. This was done for a variety of reasons,
not the least being social control. Now, when one looks at gay marriage
from this viewpoint, it becomes obvious that the next step is to review the
Constitution, and in doing so be reminded of our endeavor to separate church
from state. In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Snakefiddler

We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation!

Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up the
lost revenues through increased taxes.

..Lou T

On 25 Feb 2004 01:13:52 GMT, (Lat705) wrote:

We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation!

Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up the
lost revenues through increased taxes.

.Lou T


Jeez, I was just hearing about the Marriage Tax Penalties.


g.c.

"snakefiddler" wrote in message
In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United
States.

Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer.
Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain
rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be
degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me
a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets.
So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what
occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's
business, we're all in it deep.

If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is
a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the
same word to describe two very different things.

$.02,
Joe F.

In article , fleischman608
@NOSPAMverizon.net says...

"snakefiddler" wrote in message
In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United
States.

Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer.
Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain
rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be
degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me
a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets.
So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what
occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's
business, we're all in it deep.

If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is
a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the
same word to describe two very different things.

I think the more underlying problem is that the religious institutions
(in general) don't like it.....regardless of what it's called.
- Ken

"rb608" wrote in message
...

"snakefiddler" wrote in message
In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United
States.

Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer.
Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain
rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be
degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny
me
a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets.
So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what
occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's
business, we're all in it deep.

If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace
is
a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use
the
same word to describe two very different things.

$.02,
Joe F.



Well Said.......

Snake

"Lat705" wrote in message
...
Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up
the
lost revenues through increased taxes.


No doubt you have not heard of the marriage penalty in the computation of
federal income tax. While the Bush tax cut attempted to remove the effect of
some of it, it's still there.