who cares about the Guard thing?

wrote in message
...
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

I think you are right. I also think it is important to note the Reformed
and even (somewhat) the Conservative Jewish community has supported gay
marriage for some time now.

Snake

Die. Then see if your legal spouse doesn't get a tax break. Asked the rental
car clerk in Bozeman if me and my male fishing buddy would have to pay the
extra $5 per day if we were gay. She said no. I would not kiss him though.
There IS a financial break given to gays not given to others.

Lou writes:
She said no. I would not kiss him though.
There IS a financial break given to gays not given to others.

....I think the clerk was trying to amuse herself by watching you mull it over.
Tom

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.

Exactly what we should be looking at. All the unions we currently call
marriage in this country are actually civil unions. In some cases the
various states have allowed religious leaders the authority to perform said
unions and , in doing so, sanction such unions under the auspices of that
particular religion.

Here in FL, a notary public can legally perform such a legal union and have
it recognized as a marriage. I have no idea how many weddings are performed
in Las Vegas by non religious people. Even the majority of Christians still
accept these as legal "marriages." We need to take a stab at changing the
language we work under in this instance.

Like many others, I don't care who does what to whom if they consent and do
it in private. I don't care who wishes to grant each other legal and
medical power of attorney, rights to inherit, or other property and civil
rights as long as it is done between consenting adults. The civil union of
two gays performed by a civil authority in any state has exactly no effect
and no bearing on the civil union performed by a Rabbi in MD when Gloria and
I were married.

Now I've got to write my various congress people and tell them to vote
against this stupid amendment.


--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

It is inherently unfair and sancitmonious to deny anyone, based on their
sexual orientation, the pleasure of a really nasty divorce.

john

"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

asadi notes:
It is inherently unfair and sancitmonious to deny anyone, based on their
sexual orientation, the pleasure of a really nasty divorce.

john

precisely!
Tom