The New "Marriage", Not the Same as Marriage

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Michael Ejercito

2011-06-27 03:58:43 UTC

Responding to: Michael Ejercito

The New "Marriage", Not the Same as Marriage
Just because the same word is used to describe same-sex unions as
opposite-sex unions, does not mean there should or must be no legal or
social distinction between the two
On June 24, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York signed the bill
abandoning the definition of marriage in use since New York's days as a
British colony, expanding the definition to include same-sex couples.
This marks the first time same-sex couples have any sort of legal
recognition, status, or approval originating from the state of New York.
I will leave, for another time, the issue of whether this new definition
is consistent with the social understanding of marriage in New York. But
even assuming arguendo that a new social understanding of marriage
warranted redefinition, must or should same- sex unions be treated
IDENTICALLY with opposite-sex unions?
The answer to both of these questions is no.
New York, of course, must abide with the limits of the United States
Constitution and the New York Constitution is crafting its policies in
marriage and family. Under under binding precedent from both the United
States Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals, identical
treatment is not required.
In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37 (1972), the
Supreme Court summarily dismissed an appeal alleging that Minnesota's
refusal to grant a marriage license to a couple on the basis of the sex
of the partners violated the due process and equal protection clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and that there was at least a rational basis
for doing so. While there are some twists and turns regarding summary
dismissals, they are decisions on the merits and constitute precedent.
If, under Baker, same-sex unions can be completely denied any sort of
legal status, a legally recognized same- sex union, regardless of what
it is called, may be treated differently under the law from opposite-sex
unions, just as long as there is a rational basis for the difference.
And in Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. of
Appeals 2006), the Court of Appeals likewise rejected similar challenges
based on the state's constitution, holding that the historical and
traditional definition of marriage satisfied rational basis review. Just
like Baker does at the federal level, Hernandez stands for, at the state
level, the proposition that a legally recognized same-sex union,
regardless of what it is called, may be treated differently under the
law from opposite-sex unions, just as long as there is a rational basis
for the difference.
And unlike superficial characteristics such as skin color, sex is a
substantial characteristic that differentiates same-sex unions from
opposite-sex unions. To begin with, an opposite-sex union, on average,
is many, many times more likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy
than a same-sex union. This is a huge difference, as wives of husbands
in marriages often have to restrict their participation in the
workforce, if only to take care of small children due to unplanned
pregnancies. In addition, unplanned pregnancies result in medical
expenses associated with prenatal care, childbirth, and pediatric care.
Furthermore, a husband of a wife is in a greater natural position to
remarry a "trophy wife" after a divorce than the wife. These issues are
much less present with same-sex unions than opposite- sex unions, and
laws regarding marriage and family should account for these differences.
One example of a law that would account for these differences is a law
granting preferential treatment to partners in legally recognized
opposite-sex unions concerning adoption. Children, on average, are
raised best by a mother and father. To be sure, there are and were
alternate forms of families, including groups of monks and nuns raising
children communally in monasteries. But while medieval European society
found it admirable and honorable for a group of monks or nuns (of the
same sex and presumably in non-sexual relationships) to communally raise
orphans, they were not regarded as married, or legally or socially
identical to married couples doing the same.
It will be ill-advised, to both the individuals involved and to society
as a whole, if a couple in a homosexual relationship, or a pair of monks
raising children, were treated like married couples without regard for
these inherent differences.

What a huge steaming pile of sour-grapes multi-xposted flame-war crap.
What a marriage is, beyond the legal definitions, which is whats on the
cards here along with the discrimination\equality-before-the-law issues,
is up to the married to define for themselves, free from the interference
of the impositions of others and their dogmas. Period.
Kindly indulge in your pro-religious (bordering on anti-American)
nonsense in the privacy of your own home, and only with consenting adults
from here on. Ta.
(FU set appropriately)
--
*=(http://www.churchofreality.org/

So people can marry ANYONE, or ANYTHING?

Such an idea is nowhere to be found in our SECULAR moral, legal, or
philosophical traditions.

Michael

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-05 00:44:27 UTC

Permalink

Responding to: Michael Ejercito

Look at the history of the Mormon Church.

For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals? Would THAT
not violate equality before the law, if homosexuals could practice
their preferred version of marriage but Mormons could not?

Michael

Mitchell Holman

2011-07-05 02:03:25 UTC

Permalink

Post by Michael Ejercito

Responding to: Michael Ejercito

I will leave, for another time, the issue of whether this new
definitio

is consistent with the social understanding of marriage in New
York. Bu

even assuming arguendo that a new social understanding of marriage
warranted redefinition, must or should same- sex unions be treated
IDENTICALLY with opposite-sex unions?
The answer to both of these questions is no.
New York, of course, must abide with the limits of the United
States Constitution and the New York Constitution is crafting its
policies in marriage and family. Under under binding precedent from
both the United States Supreme Court and the New York Court of
Appeals, identical treatment is not required.
In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37
(1972), th

Supreme Court summarily dismissed an appeal alleging that
Minnesota's refusal to grant a marriage license to a couple on the
basis of the sex of the partners violated the due process and equal
protection clauses o

the Fourteenth Amendment, and that there was at least a rational
basis for doing so. While there are some twists and turns regarding
summary dismissals, they are decisions on the merits and constitute
precedent. If, under Baker, same-sex unions can be completely
denied any sort of legal status, a legally recognized same- sex
union, regardless of what it is called, may be treated differently
under the law from opposite-se

unions, just as long as there is a rational basis for the
difference.
And in Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. of
Appeals 2006), the Court of Appeals likewise rejected similar
challenge

based on the state's constitution, holding that the historical and
traditional definition of marriage satisfied rational basis review.
Jus

like Baker does at the federal level, Hernandez stands for, at the
stat

level, the proposition that a legally recognized same-sex union,
regardless of what it is called, may be treated differently under
the law from opposite-sex unions, just as long as there is a
rational basis for the difference.
And unlike superficial characteristics such as skin color, sex is a
substantial characteristic that differentiates same-sex unions from
opposite-sex unions. To begin with, an opposite-sex union, on
average, is many, many times more likely to experience an unplanned
pregnancy than a same-sex union. This is a huge difference, as
wives of husbands in marriages often have to restrict their
participation in the workforce, if only to take care of small
children due to unplanned pregnancies. In addition, unplanned
pregnancies result in medical expenses associated with prenatal
care, childbirth, and pediatric care. Furthermore, a husband of a
wife is in a greater natural position to remarry a "trophy wife"
after a divorce than the wife. These issues are much less present
with same-sex unions than opposite- sex unions, and laws regarding
marriage and family should account for these differences

One example of a law that would account for these differences is a
law granting preferential treatment to partners in legally
recognized opposite-sex unions concerning adoption. Children, on
average, are raised best by a mother and father. To be sure, there
are and were alternate forms of families, including groups of monks
and nuns raising children communally in monasteries. But while
medieval European society found it admirable and honorable for a
group of monks or nuns (of the same sex and presumably in
non-sexual relationships) to communally rais

orphans, they were not regarded as married, or legally or socially
identical to married couples doing the same.
It will be ill-advised, to both the individuals involved and to
society as a whole, if a couple in a homosexual relationship, or a
pair of monk

raising children, were treated like married couples without regard
for these inherent differences.

Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Post by Michael Ejercito
Would THAT
not violate equality before the law, if homosexuals could practice
their preferred version of marriage but Mormons could not?

Same sex marriage is different from polygamous marriage.

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-05 17:11:34 UTC

Permalink

Responding to:Michael Ejercito

I will leave, for another time, the issue of whether this new
definitio

is consistent with the social understanding of marriage in New
York. Bu

based on the state's constitution, holding that the historical and
traditional definition of marriage satisfied rational basis review.
Jus

like Baker does at the federal level, Hernandez stands for, at the
stat

raising children, were treated like married couples without regard
for these inherent differences.

Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

Would THAT
not violate equality before the law, if homosexuals could practice
their preferred version of marriage but Mormons could not?

Same sex marriage is different from polygamous marriage.

How so?

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

Let us see. Mormons were practicing their own form of marriage, and
Congress passed a series of laws to stamp out the practice. The
polygamists challenged these laws in court, and these challenges were
unanimously rejected. On of these cases, Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333
(1890), was pretty much dispositive on this, as well as the issue of
same-sex "marriage".

“Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary
in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth ... than that
which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as
consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one
woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that
is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that
reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in
social and political improvement.”

Davis, 133 U.S. at 344, 345, quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at
45 (1885)

And now the homosexuals claim that THEY have a right to practice
their own version of marriage? Do you honestly believe that any of the
judges who ruled on the Mormon anti-polygamy cases would have been
sympathetic to the idea that preventing people from "marrying" someone
of the same sex violates the Constitution? Do you honestly believe
that Justice Thomas Stanley Matthews, who wrote that legislation
seeking to "establish" a "free, self-governing commonwealth" on the
basis of families "consisting in and springing from the union for life
of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" would have
been sympathetic to the idea of marriage "equality"? Or Justice
Stephen Field, who quoted Matthews to uphold the Edmunds Act of 1887?

Michael

Mitchell Holman

2011-07-06 01:58:44 UTC

Permalink

Post by Michael Ejercito

innews:e3e497cd-5d8a-48ec-b9

Responding to:Michael Ejercito

I will leave, for another time, the issue of whether this new
definitio

is consistent with the social understanding of marriage in New
York. Bu

even assuming arguendo that a new social understanding of
marriage warranted redefinition, must or should same- sex unions
be treated IDENTICALLY with opposite-sex unions?
The answer to both of these questions is no.
New York, of course, must abide with the limits of the United
States Constitution and the New York Constitution is crafting
its policies in marriage and family. Under under binding
precedent from both the United States Supreme Court and the New
York Court of Appeals, identical treatment is not required.
In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37
(1972), th

Supreme Court summarily dismissed an appeal alleging that
Minnesota's refusal to grant a marriage license to a couple on
the basis of the sex of the partners violated the due process
and equal protection clauses o

the Fourteenth Amendment, and that there was at least a rational
basis for doing so. While there are some twists and turns
regarding summary dismissals, they are decisions on the merits
and constitute precedent. If, under Baker, same-sex unions can
be completely denied any sort of legal status, a legally
recognized same- sex union, regardless of what it is called, may
be treated differently under the law from opposite-se

unions, just as long as there is a rational basis for the difference.
And in Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct.
of Appeals 2006), the Court of Appeals likewise rejected similar
challenge

based on the state's constitution, holding that the historical
and traditional definition of marriage satisfied rational basis
review. Jus

like Baker does at the federal level, Hernandez stands for, at
the stat

level, the proposition that a legally recognized same-sex union,
regardless of what it is called, may be treated differently
under the law from opposite-sex unions, just as long as there is
a rational basis for the difference.
And unlike superficial characteristics such as skin color, sex
is a substantial characteristic that differentiates same-sex
unions from opposite-sex unions. To begin with, an opposite-sex
union, on average, is many, many times more likely to experience
an unplanned pregnancy than a same-sex union. This is a huge
difference, as wives of husbands in marriages often have to
restrict their participation in the workforce, if only to take
care of small children due to unplanned pregnancies. In
addition, unplanned pregnancies result in medical expenses
associated with prenatal care, childbirth, and pediatric care.
Furthermore, a husband of a wife is in a greater natural
position to remarry a "trophy wife" after a divorce than the
wife. These issues are much less present with same-sex unions
than opposite- sex unions, and laws regarding marriage and
family should account for these differences

One example of a law that would account for these differences is
a law granting preferential treatment to partners in legally
recognized opposite-sex unions concerning adoption. Children, on
average, are raised best by a mother and father. To be sure,
there are and were alternate forms of families, including groups
of monks and nuns raising children communally in monasteries.
But while medieval European society found it admirable and
honorable for a group of monks or nuns (of the same sex and
presumably in non-sexual relationships) to communally rais

orphans, they were not regarded as married, or legally or
socially identical to married couples doing the same.
It will be ill-advised, to both the individuals involved and to
society as a whole, if a couple in a homosexual relationship, or
a pair of monk

raising children, were treated like married couples without
regard for these inherent differences.

Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Funny how Divine Revelation changes to fit modern
legal needs, no?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

What do Mormons have to do with gay marriage?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Would THAT
not violate equality before the law, if homosexuals could practice
their preferred version of marriage but Mormons could not?

Same sex marriage is different from polygamous marriage.

How so?

Don't be so dense, it does not help your argument.

Post by Michael Ejercito

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

They are seeking equality with straight people.

What do you have against equality?

Post by Michael Ejercito
Do you honestly believe that any of the
judges who ruled on the Mormon anti-polygamy cases would have been
sympathetic to the idea that preventing people from "marrying" someone
of the same sex violates the Constitution? Do you honestly believe
that Justice Thomas Stanley Matthews, who wrote that legislation
seeking to "establish" a "free, self-governing commonwealth" on the
basis of families "consisting in and springing from the union for life
of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" would have
been sympathetic to the idea of marriage "equality"? Or Justice
Stephen Field, who quoted Matthews to uphold the Edmunds Act of 1887?

You are citing as authority on equality the same
judges who wrote the Plessy vs Ferguson decision?

Dang............

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-06 03:55:14 UTC

Permalink

innews:e3e497cd-5d8a-48ec-b9

Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Funny how Divine Revelation changes to fit modern
legal needs, no?

That is a tradition dating back before Sinai.

Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

What do Mormons have to do with gay marriage?

They, like the homosexuals, wanted to practice their own version of
marriage.

They, like the homosexuals, were prohibited from practicing their
own form of marriage.

They, like the homosexuals, lost at the Supreme Court level.

Would THAT
not violate equality before the law, if homosexuals could practice
their preferred version of marriage but Mormons could not?

Same sex marriage is different from polygamous marriage.

How so?

Don't be so dense, it does not help your argument.

What is the CONSTITUTIONALLY significant difference between the
two?

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

They are seeking equality with straight people.

Just like Mormons sought equality with Protestants.

What do you have against equality?

Nothing.

Laws that defined marriage as between one man and one woman applied
equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, Mormons and Protestants. How
does equal application violate equality?

Do you honestly believe that any of the
judges who ruled on the Mormon anti-polygamy cases would have been
sympathetic to the idea that preventing people from "marrying" someone
of the same sex violates the Constitution? Do you honestly believe
that Justice Thomas Stanley Matthews, who wrote that legislation
seeking to "establish" a "free, self-governing commonwealth" on the
basis of families "consisting in and springing from the union for life
of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" would have
been sympathetic to the idea of marriage "equality"? Or Justice
Stephen Field, who quoted Matthews to uphold the Edmunds Act of 1887?

You are citing as authority on equality the same
judges who wrote the Plessy vs Ferguson decision?
Dang............

The justice who wrote Plessy was Justice Henry Brown.

However, the Mormon anti-polygamy decisions were UNANIMOUS. Justice
John Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy, was in the Davis Court and
had joined the opinion, instead of filing a separate concurring or
dissenting opinion. Another justice who sat on the Davis Court, but
not the Plessy Court, was Justice Joseph Bradley, who wrote that
"class legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the
Fourteenth Amendment," Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 24 (1883) And
yet, these two justices, one of who did not sit on the Court at the
time of Plessy, and another who DISSENTED in Plessy, had joined the
opinion in Davis that quoted the passage in Murphy to uphold the
Edmunds Act, instead of writing a narrower concurring or dissenting
opinion, as Chief Justice John Roberts did when he wrote a narrower
concurring opinion in Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ____ (2010), NO.
08-7412. Would Harlan and Bradley have been sympathetic to the idea of
marriage "equality", let alone the idea that the 14th Amendment
requires marriage "equality"?

Michael

Mitchell Holman

2011-07-07 23:56:12 UTC

Permalink

Post by Michael Ejercito

innews:010186eb-62f8-4cb5-a

innews:e3e497cd-5d8a-48ec-b9

Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Funny how Divine Revelation changes to fit modern
legal needs, no?

That is a tradition dating back before Sinai.

Moral codes straight from the Bronze age.

Do you want some animal sacrifice and
slavery to go along with your homophobia?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

What do Mormons have to do with gay marriage?

They, like the homosexuals, wanted to practice their own version of
marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, were prohibited from practicing their
own form of marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, lost at the Supreme Court level.

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.

Opps, make that SIX states now.

See a pattern there, do you?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

Let us see. Mormons were practicing their own form of marriage,

and

Congress passed a series of laws to stamp out the practice. The
polygamists challenged these laws in court, and these challenges
were unanimously rejected. On of these cases, Davis v. Beason, 133
U.S. 333 (1890), was pretty much dispositive on this, as well as
the issue of same-sex "marriage".
Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
necessar

in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth ... than
that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the
family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of
one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the
best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
Davis, 133 U.S. at 344, 345, quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15
at 45 (1885)
And now the homosexuals claim that THEY have a right to practice
their own version of marriage?

They are seeking equality with straight people.

Just like Mormons sought equality with Protestants.

What do you have against equality?

Nothing.
Laws that defined marriage as between one man and one woman applied
equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, Mormons and Protestants. How
does equal application violate equality?

Why do you keep dragging religion into this?

There is no religious test for a marriage
licence anymore, get used to it.

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-08 16:00:47 UTC

Permalink

innews:010186eb-62f8-4cb5-a

Post by Michael Ejercito

innews:e3e497cd-5d8a-48ec-b9

Post by Michael Ejercito
Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Funny how Divine Revelation changes to fit modern
legal needs, no?

That is a tradition dating back before Sinai.

Moral codes straight from the Bronze age.
Do you want some animal sacrifice and
slavery to go along with your homophobia?

Ah, so it was "homphobic" to define marriage as between one man and
one woman.

Were the anti-bigamy laws homophobic? Or Mormon-phobic?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by Michael Ejercito
Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

What do Mormons have to do with gay marriage?

They, like the homosexuals, wanted to practice their own version of
marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, were prohibited from practicing their
own form of marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, lost at the Supreme Court level.

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Opps, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Six states since 1776. At that rate...

Post by Michael Ejercito

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

Let us see. Mormons were practicing their own form of marriage,

and

Post by Michael Ejercito
Congress passed a series of laws to stamp out the practice. The
polygamists challenged these laws in court, and these challenges
were unanimously rejected. On of these cases, Davis v. Beason, 133
U.S. 333 (1890), was pretty much dispositive on this, as well as
the issue of same-sex "marriage".
Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
necessar

Post by Michael Ejercito
in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth ... than
that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the
family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of
one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the
best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
Davis, 133 U.S. at 344, 345, quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15
at 45 (1885)
And now the homosexuals claim that THEY have a right to practice
their own version of marriage?

They are seeking equality with straight people.

Just like Mormons sought equality with Protestants.

What do you have against equality?

Nothing.
Laws that defined marriage as between one man and one woman applied
equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, Mormons and Protestants. How
does equal application violate equality?

Why do you keep dragging religion into this?
There is no religious test for a marriage
licence anymore, get used to it.

I stated that the marriage laws applied equally.

Michael

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-08 20:36:08 UTC

Permalink

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:00:47 -0700 (PDT),

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Oops, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Six states since...

...2004. And FIVE of those, plus the District of Columbia,
within just the last THREE years!

At that rate...

...it will be ALL 50 states within just a FEW more years.

Especially if the U.S. Supreme Court ends the hateful
exclusion from marriage for same-sex couples in ALL FIFTY
**at once**, as it did for interracial couples in 1967!

MEANWHILE, same-sex couples can go to D.C., and to
any of the FREE states from anywhere else to get legally
married -- and there is not ONE damned thing at any of
you socially-RETARDED lowlifes can do to prevent that!

You LOSE, mindless bigot!!

ROTFL!!!!! It's FUN, watching you sociopaths going down
in flames -- JUST as the EQUALLY-moronic segregationists
did. Your hate-agendas doomed to EXTINCTION.

And any of YOUR ilk who don't closet themselves will be
social PARIAHS. Irrevocably. Forever.

We who are egalitarians haven't seen anything THIS
entertaining since 47 years ago, in the South!! LOL!!!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

FREEDOM is ACCELERATING!

Same-sex marriage (SSM) is REALITY, or is about to be, in all
these places, and the list is steadily and inexorably* growing:

( * RRR & LDS Cultists: Look up "inexorable." Take it to heart.)

Full MARRIAGE EQUALITY Attained!

The Netherlands was FIRST! (2001)
Belgium (2003)
Canada (2005)
Spain (2005)
South Africa (2006)
Norway (2008)
Sweden (2009)
Iceland (2010)
Mexico City, Mexico (3-4-2010)
Argentina (Catholic nation) (2010)
Portugal (2010)
USA: Massachusetts (2004)
USA: Connecticut (2008)
USA: Vermont (2009). *Legislatively*!!
USA: Iowa (2009) (IA Supreme Court, 9-0!)
USA: New Hampshire (2009). *Legislatively*!!
USA: Washington, D.C. (2010)
USA: New York State (6-24-11). *Legislatively*!!
USA: New Jersey: Not banned, but not endorsed.
USA: New Mexico: Not banned, but not endorsed.
USA: Rhode Island: Not banned, but not endorsed.

CIVIL UNIONS Legal
(One Step to Go!)

Brazil -- Supreme Court legalizes same-sex
unions and accords full rights, on May 5, 2011.
(Largest national Catholic populace in the world!)
Czech Republic (2006)
Ecuador (2009)
New Zealand (2004)
United Kingdom (2005) (*Regarded* to be SSM!)***
Uruguay (2008)
Ireland, as of April, 2011
USA: California ("Domestic Partnerships," for now.)
USA: Colorado (2009)
USA: Delaware. To be effective on 1-1-2012.
USA: Hawaii (1997). To improve on 1-1-2012.
USA: Illinois, as of June1, 2011
USA: Maryland (2008)
USA: Nevada (2009)
USA: New Jersey (2007)
USA: Oregon (2008)
USA: Rhode Island (2011)
USA: Washington State (2007)
USA: Wisconsin (2009)

MARRIAGE EQUALITY PENDING

Albania
Cambodia
Chile
Hungary
Nepal
Peru
Slovenia
Venezuela
Brazil -- Supreme Court legalized same-sex
unions and accorded full rights, on 5-5-11.
(Largest national Catholic populace in world.)
California: Has 18,000 legally-married
same-sex couples, and the future looks
very BRIGHT, per THIS clear trend:
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html

Populations that Support Marriage Equality

Australia: 64% as of 2010.
Britain: 61% the Population as of 2010.
Eur. Union: 53% as of 2004.
France: 64% as of 2004.
USA: 53% as of early 2011.
*Opposition* is DECLINING fast!

= = =

** Rhode Island, Maryland, France, & Israel now recognize
same-sex married couples who have been legally married
outside of the state/country.

*** Only wording remains. ALL rights granted. So
most Brits & the press sensibly CALL it marriage.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-09 01:07:35 UTC

Permalink

On Jul 8, 1:36 pm, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:00:47 -0700 (PDT),

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Oops, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Six states since...

...2004. And FIVE of those, plus the District of Columbia,
within just the last THREE years!

At that rate...

There you go again comparing same-sex "marriage" with interracial
marriage.

The Supreme Court is more likely to treat them the same as the
Mormon polygamists, and history shows how they treated the Mormon
polygamists.

Michael

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-09 02:11:04 UTC

Permalink

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 18:07:35 -0700 (PDT),

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Oops, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Six states since...

...2004. And FIVE of those, plus the District of Columbia,
within just the last THREE years!

At that rate...

There you go again comparing same-sex marriage with inter-
racial marriage.

VERY logically, since BOTH of those groups were IRRATIONALLY
*excluded* from marriage for NO good reason by hateful and
abysmally-IGNORANT losers.

The interracial couples were FREED from that idiotic exclusion,
nationwide, in 1967, and same-sex couple are in the *process*
of BEING freed from that exclusion at an *accelerating* pace!

In BOTH cases, the mindless bigots have LOST... and good
riddance to putrid rubbish!

The Supreme Court is ...

,,,VERY likely to FAIRLY and SENSIBLY do the same for the
same-sex couples that it did for the interracial ones, so as NOT
to have to make a HUGE apology to the segregationists!

Same-sex marriage 1s 100% HARMLESS!!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

EFFECTS of Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts -- The REALITY

"I think if any grade school teacher spoke openly and detailed sex,
whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, etc.... they would probably
be fired and arrested.

"FYI, it does not rain fire and brimstone in Massachusetts since
they legalized gay marriage. The family unit has not deteriorated.
Rampant rape and pillaging in the streets does not occur. It's been
business as usual since then, and most people go about their lives
as they always did. The only noticeable factor has been in increase
in the business revenue associated with weddings. When has that
ever been a bad thing?"

-- "PersonX" <***@gmail.com>, 11-10-08

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 6 websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- BRAND-NEW 2011 Edition!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html -- Searchable Database
of the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human Rights! KNOW the
enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the enemies, as much
as it is legally possible to do so!

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-09 17:18:13 UTC

Permalink

On Jul 8, 7:11 pm, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 18:07:35 -0700 (PDT),

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Oops, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Six states since...

...2004. And FIVE of those, plus the District of Columbia,
within just the last THREE years!

At that rate...

There you go again comparing same-sex marriage with inter-
racial marriage.

VERY logically, since BOTH of those groups were IRRATIONALLY
*excluded* from marriage for NO good reason by hateful and
abysmally-IGNORANT losers.
The interracial couples were FREED from that idiotic exclusion,
nationwide, in 1967, and same-sex couple are in the *process*
of BEING freed from that exclusion at an *accelerating* pace!
In BOTH cases, the mindless bigots have LOST... and good
riddance to putrid rubbish!

And yet you fail to explain why the Supreme Court did not strike
down anti-polygamy laws.

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

The Supreme Court is ...

,,,VERY likely to FAIRLY and SENSIBLY do the same for the
same-sex couples that it did for the interracial ones, so as NOT
to have to make a HUGE apology to the segregationists!

If they strike down laws defining marriage as between one man and
one woman, they would owe an apology to the Mormon polygamists.

Michael

Mitchell Holman

2011-07-10 04:40:30 UTC

Permalink

Post by Michael Ejercito

innews:835f9035-ab61-475a-8a

innews:010186eb-62f8-4cb5-a

Post by Michael Ejercito

innews:e3e497cd-5d8a-48ec-b9

Post by Michael Ejercito
Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Funny how Divine Revelation changes to fit modern
legal needs, no?

That is a tradition dating back before Sinai.

Moral codes straight from the Bronze age.
Do you want some animal sacrifice and
slavery to go along with your homophobia?

Ah, so it was "homphobic" to define marriage as between one man and
one woman.

Even if that was "defined" in the Bible 5000 years
ago why should it matter now?

Post by Michael Ejercito
Were the anti-bigamy laws homophobic? Or Mormon-phobic?

Should we kill people for working on Saturday
as your Bible commands?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by Michael Ejercito
Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

What do Mormons have to do with gay marriage?

They, like the homosexuals, wanted to practice their own version

marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, were prohibited from practicing thei

own form of marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, lost at the Supreme Court level.

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Opps, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Six states since 1776. At that rate...

Gay marriage is legal and getting more so,
get used to it.

Post by Michael Ejercito

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

Let us see. Mormons were practicing their own form of marriage,

and

Post by Michael Ejercito
Congress passed a series of laws to stamp out the practice. The
polygamists challenged these laws in court, and these challenges
were unanimously rejected. On of these cases, Davis v. Beason,
133 U.S. 333 (1890), was pretty much dispositive on this, as
well as the issue of same-sex "marriage".
Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
necessar

Post by Michael Ejercito
in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth ... than
that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the
family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life
of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the
sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our
civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which
is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political
improvement.
Davis, 133 U.S. at 344, 345, quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S.
15 at 45 (1885)
And now the homosexuals claim that THEY have a right to practice
their own version of marriage?

They are seeking equality with straight people.

Just like Mormons sought equality with Protestants.

What do you have against equality?

Nothing.
Laws that defined marriage as between one man and one woman appl

ied

equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, Mormons and Protestants.
How does equal application violate equality?

Why do you keep dragging religion into this?
There is no religious test for a marriage
licence anymore, get used to it.

I stated that the marriage laws applied equally.

If you don't like gay marriage don't enter
into one.

Now hard is that?

Allofus

2011-07-10 15:31:53 UTC

Permalink

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:40:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
Now hard is that?

Is that the $64 question that queers ask just before they shove their
dick up another queers ass?

juanjo

2011-07-10 17:55:03 UTC

Permalink

Post by Allofus
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:40:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Now hard is that?

This is the $64 question that queers ask me just before they shove their
dick up my ass.

We did not need to know that, troll

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-10 21:05:48 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT),

LOWLIFE Bigot, BILL TAYLOR

Post by Allofus

Now hard is that?

This is the $64 question that queers ask me just before they
shove their dick up my ass.

We did not need to know that, troll.

WE know that... and HE know doubt knows that it is a DELIBERATE
tactic by the RRR Cult to make gays look bad in the eyes of society.

The good news is that it is BACKFIRING on them spectacularly!

Most people see through that in a heartbeat!!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Gay-Sex-OBSESSED, Gutter-Minded, Homophobic Bigots have the
IMMATURITY of 6-Year-old Boys Raised by LOWIFE Parents

"Funny how you bigots always drag sex into the conversation,
it shows just how frustrated and filthy minded you are."

-- "RamRod" <***@truthonly.com>, responding to one of
those social retards, on 7-1-11.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

And how IRONIC it is that hundreds of MILLIONS of *straight*
people in the USA and BILLIONS of straights worldwide, routinely
engage in the SAME sex acts that the GAYS engage in. But the
irrational and dishonest homophobic bigots NEVER acknowledge
THAT -- or WHINE about those *straights* doing it.

Homophobic bigots are some of the most MORONIC lowlifes on
the face of the planet! No WONDER they are *fast* becoming the
world's biggest LAUGHINGSTOCKS! (LOL!!)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 6 websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- BRAND-NEW 2011 Edition!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html -- Searchable Database
of the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human Rights! KNOW the
enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the enemies, as much
as it is legally possible to do so!

Allofus

2011-07-12 13:46:26 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT), juanjo

Post by Allofus
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:40:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Now hard is that?

This is the $64 question that queers ask me just before they shove their
dick up my ass.

The world did not need to know that.

Spoils your image when people hear the truth about you rather than the
lies you tell them, huh? How about a deal; you stop telling lies about
homosexuality and we will stop telling the truth about homosexuals.

Mitchell Holman

2011-07-11 03:25:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Allofus
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:40:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
Now hard is that?

Is that the $64 question that queers ask just before they shove their
dick up another queers ass?

That's not the way lesbians do it.

Oh, I remember. Gay sex is disgusting
but lesbian is "hot", right?

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-10 17:07:03 UTC

Permalink

innews:835f9035-ab61-475a-8a

innews:010186eb-62f8-4cb5-a

Post by Michael Ejercito

innews:e3e497cd-5d8a-48ec-b9

Post by Michael Ejercito
Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Funny how Divine Revelation changes to fit modern
legal needs, no?

That is a tradition dating back before Sinai.

Moral codes straight from the Bronze age.
Do you want some animal sacrifice and
slavery to go along with your homophobia?

Ah, so it was "homphobic" to define marriage as between one man and
one woman.

Even if that was "defined" in the Bible 5000 years
ago why should it matter now?

Were the anti-bigamy laws homophobic? Or Mormon-phobic?

Should we kill people for working on Saturday
as your Bible commands?

No, the Bible only commanded Israel to kill people who work on
Saturday.

Were the anti-bigamy laws homophobic? Or Mormon-phobic?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by Michael Ejercito
Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

What do Mormons have to do with gay marriage?

They, like the homosexuals, wanted to practice their own version

marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, were prohibited from practicing thei

own form of marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, lost at the Supreme Court level.

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Opps, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Six states since 1776. At that rate...

Gay marriage is legal and getting more so,
get used to it.

Post by Michael Ejercito

Your attempt to equate the two only shows your desperation.

Let us see. Mormons were practicing their own form of marriage,

and

Post by Michael Ejercito
Congress passed a series of laws to stamp out the practice. The
polygamists challenged these laws in court, and these challenges
were unanimously rejected. On of these cases, Davis v. Beason,
133 U.S. 333 (1890), was pretty much dispositive on this, as
well as the issue of same-sex "marriage".
Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
necessar

Post by Michael Ejercito
in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth ... than
that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the
family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life
of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the
sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our
civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which
is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political
improvement.
Davis, 133 U.S. at 344, 345, quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S.
15 at 45 (1885)
And now the homosexuals claim that THEY have a right to practice
their own version of marriage?

They are seeking equality with straight people.

Just like Mormons sought equality with Protestants.

What do you have against equality?

Nothing.
Laws that defined marriage as between one man and one woman appl

ied

equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, Mormons and Protestants.
How does equal application violate equality?

Why do you keep dragging religion into this?
There is no religious test for a marriage
licence anymore, get used to it.

I stated that the marriage laws applied equally.

If you don't like gay marriage don't enter
into one.
Now hard is that?

The Mormons said the same thing about polygamy from 1870 to 1900.

Michael

Springfield1911

2011-07-09 03:04:25 UTC

Permalink

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:56:12 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Michael Ejercito

innews:010186eb-62f8-4cb5-a

innews:e3e497cd-5d8a-48ec-b9

Look at the history of the Mormon Church.
For some reason, THEY did not get to practice their preferred
version of marriage.

That reason would Utah's application for statehood.

And that was solely due to Congress's enabling act.

Funny how Divine Revelation changes to fit modern
legal needs, no?

That is a tradition dating back before Sinai.

Moral codes straight from the Bronze age.
Do you want some animal sacrifice and
slavery to go along with your homophobia?

Post by Michael Ejercito

Why should this privilege be extended to homosexuals?

Why should the privilege be denied them?

Because it was denied to the Mormon polygamists. It is not equal
rights if some groups are more equal than others.

What do Mormons have to do with gay marriage?

They, like the homosexuals, wanted to practice their own version of
marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, were prohibited from practicing their
own form of marriage.
They, like the homosexuals, lost at the Supreme Court level.

Same sex marriage is now legal in five states.
Opps, make that SIX states now.
See a pattern there, do you?

Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional amendments
that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

See a pattern there, do you?

Wise up, DIP SHIT!

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-09 14:46:26 UTC

Permalink

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:04:25 -0400,
BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Post by Springfield1911
Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

And very STUPIDLY so, since same-sex marriage is 100%
HARMLESS!

As society FAST is figuring out at an ACCELERATING pace!

Watch as those states SOON start REPEALING those hate-laws
like a row of dominoes!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

FREEDOM is ACCELERATING!

Same-sex marriage (SSM) is REALITY, or is about to be, in all
these places, and the list is steadily and inexorably* growing:

( * RRR & LDS Cultists: Look up "inexorable." Take it to heart.)

Full MARRIAGE EQUALITY Attained!

The Netherlands was FIRST! (2001)
Belgium (2003)
Canada (2005)
Spain (2005)
South Africa (2006)
Norway (2008)
Sweden (2009)
Iceland (2010)
Mexico City, Mexico (3-4-2010)
Argentina (Catholic nation) (2010)
Portugal (2010)
USA: Massachusetts (2004)
USA: Connecticut (2008)
USA: Vermont (2009). *Legislatively*!!
USA: Iowa (2009) (IA Supreme Court, 9-0!)
USA: New Hampshire (2009). *Legislatively*!!
USA: Washington, D.C. (2010)
USA: New York State (6-24-11). *Legislatively*!!
USA: New Jersey: Not banned, but not endorsed.
USA: New Mexico: Not banned, but not endorsed.
USA: Rhode Island: Not banned, but not endorsed.

CIVIL UNIONS Legal
(One Step to Go!)

Brazil -- Supreme Court legalizes same-sex
unions and accords full rights, on May 5, 2011.
(Largest national Catholic populace in the world!)
Czech Republic (2006)
Ecuador (2009)
New Zealand (2004)
United Kingdom (2005) (*Regarded* to be SSM!)***
Uruguay (2008)
Ireland, as of April, 2011
USA: California ("Domestic Partnerships," for now.)
USA: Colorado (2009)
USA: Delaware. To be effective on 1-1-2012.
USA: Hawaii (1997). To improve on 1-1-2012.
USA: Illinois, as of June1, 2011
USA: Maryland (2008)
USA: Nevada (2009)
USA: New Jersey (2007)
USA: Oregon (2008)
USA: Rhode Island (2011)
USA: Washington State (2007)
USA: Wisconsin (2009)

MARRIAGE EQUALITY PENDING

Albania
Cambodia
Chile
Hungary
Nepal
Peru
Slovenia
Venezuela
Brazil -- Supreme Court legalized same-sex
unions and accorded full rights, on 5-5-11.
(Largest national Catholic populace in world.)
California: Has 18,000 legally-married
same-sex couples, and the future looks
very BRIGHT, per THIS clear trend:
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html

Populations that Support Marriage Equality

Australia: 64% as of 2010.
Britain: 61% the Population as of 2010.
Eur. Union: 53% as of 2004.
France: 64% as of 2004.
USA: 53% as of early 2011.
*Opposition* is DECLINING fast!

= = =

** Rhode Island, Maryland, France, & Israel now recognize
same-sex married couples who have been legally married
outside of the state/country.

*** Only wording remains. ALL rights granted. So
most Brits & the press sensibly CALL it marriage.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 6 websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- BRAND-NEW 2011 Edition!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html -- Searchable Database
of the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human Rights! KNOW the
enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the enemies, as much
as it is legally possible to do so!

Springfield1911

2011-07-09 16:21:33 UTC

Permalink

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:46:26 -0500, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:04:25 -0400,
BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Post by Springfield1911
Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

And very STUPIDLY so, since same-sex marriage is 100%
HARMLESS!

Can you believe this senile old man? He thinks he knows better than
they what's best for 80% of the US population? FUCK OFF, CCC!

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
As society FAST is figuring out at an ACCELERATING pace!

Yes, taking you homos and homo lovers down a dead end street <SNIGGER>

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Watch as those states SOON start REPEALING those hate-laws
like a row of dominoes!

But Crazy Craig, New York is the only state in which there is a
movement to repeal a marriage law and they (Drum Roll) are pushing
hard to repeal the recent action by the states ultra liberal
legislature allowing SSM.

Bill Taylor

2011-07-10 04:17:05 UTC

Permalink

In article <***@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯)

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:04:25 -0400,
BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Post by Springfield1911
Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

That's very intelligent of them.

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
And very STUPIDLY so, since same-sex marriage is 100%
HARMLESS!

Forty states disagree.

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
As society FAST is figuring out at an ACCELERATING pace!

You meant to say heading for the nearest toilet, or "outhouse"
as they have in Iowa.

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-10 14:19:04 UTC

Permalink

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:04:25 -0400,
BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Post by Springfield1911
Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-10 17:05:00 UTC

Permalink

On Jul 10, 7:19 am, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:04:25 -0400,
BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Here you go again equating the definition of marriage as a "union
for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"
with hate.

Michael

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-10 18:27:32 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:05:00 -0700 (PDT),

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Here you go again equating the definition of marriage as a "union
for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"...

...to the specious and *irrational* EXLUSION of same-sex couples...

Post by Michael Ejercito
...with hate.

Only because it IS. There is NO EXCUSE for according such
SPECIAL rights to opposite-sex couples. The Constitution specifies
NO barrier to marriage on the basis of gender makeup.

You have NOTHING to gain by being so irrationally hateful, since
same-sex marriage is 100% HARMLESS!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 6 websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- BRAND-NEW 2011 Edition!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html -- Searchable Database
of the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human Rights! KNOW the
enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the enemies, as much
as it is legally possible to do so!

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-11 01:40:37 UTC

Permalink

On Jul 10, 11:27 am, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:05:00 -0700 (PDT),

BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Here you go again equating the definition of marriage as a "union
for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"...

...to the specious and *irrational* EXLUSION of same-sex couples...

And yet, so many courts found that the definitional exclusion
passed rational basis review, starting in 1971.

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

...with hate.

Only because it IS. There is NO EXCUSE for according such
SPECIAL rights to opposite-sex couples. The Constitution specifies
NO barrier to marriage on the basis of gender makeup.

Neither does it forbid it. Thomas Sowell explains it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/affirmative-action-and-same-sex-marriage/

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/sowell_thomas/060814.shtml

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
You have NOTHING to gain by being so irrationally hateful, since
same-sex marriage is 100% HARMLESS!

Jeff Jacoby writes about demagogues and the marriage debate.

Demagogues and the marriage debate

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
June 7, 2006

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4480/demagogues-and-the-marriage-debate

NOTE: This column is available through the New York Times Syndicate.
For permission to reprint it, please contact ***@nytimes.com or
call 800-535-4425.

IN A STATEMENT opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment debated in
Congress this week, Senator Edward Kennedy said that "gay and lesbian
couples deserve the same rights as married couples under state law"
and dismissed the amendment as "a wholly inappropriate effort to
override state courts and to intrude into individuals' private lives."

How should those who disagree with Kennedy's position react to it? By
explaining on the merits why they believe he's wrong? Or by calling
him names -- a "gay-loving fanatic," say, or an "immoral pervert"?

It's a no-brainer. Only a demagogue believes that the controversy over
same-sex marriage can be improved by hurling insults at those who
radically want to change the meaning of matrimony. Even if you think
they are wrong, there is no reason to doubt that most Americans who
favor legalizing gay and lesbian marriages consider it an issue of
fairness and tolerance. Their arguments should be challenged with
facts and logic, not vitriol. Anyone who slandered Kennedy with slurs
like those above would be considered contemptible, and rightly so.

It is just as contemptible when the slurs and slander are hurled in
the other direction.

"A vote for this amendment," Kennedy has said repeatedly, "is a vote
for bigotry, pure and simple." Like so many on his side of the debate,
he insists that supporters of the marriage amendment are fanatics and
haters -- knuckle-draggers from "the rabid reactionary right" who want
to "stain the Constitution with their language of bigotry," as he put
it the last time the Senate took up the issue. If you are strongly
committed to the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of
husband and wife, in other words, you aren't just wrong -- you're
evil. You aren't fit to debate with, only to demonize. Kennedy and his
allies don't want to consider your point of view, and they don't want
anyone else considering it either. And they know that there is no
better way to make a viewpoint so toxic that decent Americans shun it
than to portray it as the equivalent of racism and prejudice.

But if it's "bigotry, pure and simple" not to want same-sex marriage
to be forced on American society by a handful of crusading courts,
then among the bigots must be the large congressional majority -- 85
senators, 342 representatives -- who passed the Defense of Marriage
Act in 1996, confirming that marriage in the United States is between
members of the opposite sex only and allowing states to deny
recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Former
President Bill Clinton must be a bigot too: He signed the bill into
law.

The bigots must also include the dozens of American religious leaders
who signed the Religious Coalition for Marriage statement endorsing
the marriage amendment. The list of signatories is remarkably
ecumenical -- Roman Catholic cardinals, Greek and Russian Orthodox
primates, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals,
Jewish rabbis, an apostle of the Mormon church, the president of the
Coalition of African-American Pastors, the editor of Christianity
Today, and many others. Bigots all, apparently.

Vastly more numerous are voters in the 19 states where constitutional
amendments securing the definition of marriage have been put on the
ballot. "In every case," as President Bush observed this week, "the
amendments were approved by decisive majorities, with an average of 71
percent." All told, 45 of the 50 states either have adopted
constitutional amendments or enacted laws meant to keep the timeless
meaning of marriage from being undone. If Kennedy is right, all those
states, all those lawmakers, all those voters should be despised as
bigots.

But Kennedy isn't right.

It is not bigotry to insist that there is a good reason why marriage
has existed in every known human society, and why it has always
involved the uniting of men and women. It is not bigotry to
acknowledge what reams of scholarship confirm: Family structure
matters, and children are more likely to suffer problems when they are
not raised by their married mothers and fathers. It is not bigotry to
resist the dishonest comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial
marriage -- skin color has nothing to do with wedlock, while sex is
fundamental to it. And it is not bigotry to fear that a social change
as radical as same-sex marriage could lead to grave and unintended
consequences, from the persecution of religious institutions to a
growing clamor for legalizing polygamy.

Pro, con, or undecided, Americans should be able to discuss something
as serious as redefining marriage without resorting to slander and ad
hominem attacks. There are sincere, compassionate, and thoughtful
people on both sides of this issue. How can you tell who they are?
They aren't the ones calling people bigots.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-11 06:36:51 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:40:37 -0700 (PDT),

Post by Michael Ejercito

BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Here you go again equating the definition of marriage as a "union
for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"...

...to the specious and *irrational* EXCLUSION of same-sex couples...

And yet, so many courts found that the definitional exclusion
passed rational basis review, starting in 1971.

They must have clutched at a LOT of straws to do that!

Post by Michael Ejercito

...with hate.

Only because it IS. There is NO EXCUSE for according such
SPECIAL rights to opposite-sex couples. The Constitution specifies
NO barrier to marriage on the basis of gender makeup.

Neither does it forbid it. Thomas Sowell explains it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/affirmative-action-and-same-sex-marriage/

http://
www.
washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/
affirmative-action-and-same-sex-marriage/

Post by Michael Ejercito
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/sowell_thomas/060814.shtml

http://
www.
thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/
sowell_thomas/060814.shtml

Post by Michael Ejercito
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp

http://
www.
jewishworldreview.com/
cols/sowell032400.asp

Post by Michael Ejercito

You have NOTHING to gain by being so irrationally hateful, since
same-sex marriage is 100% HARMLESS!

Jeff Jacoby writes about demagogues and the marriage debate.

I notice with interest that you were unable to refute the point
that I just made -- that same-sex marriage is HARMLESS.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Demagogues and the Marriage Bebate
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
June 7, 2006
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4480/demagogues-and-the-marriage-debate

http://
www.
jeffjacoby.com/4480/
demagogues-and-the-marriage-debate

Post by Michael Ejercito
NOTE: This column is available through the New York Times Syndicate.
call 800-535-4425.
IN A STATEMENT opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment debated in
Congress this week, Senator Edward Kennedy said that "gay and lesbian
couples deserve the same rights as married couples under state law"
and dismissed the amendment as "a wholly inappropriate effort to
override state courts and to intrude into individuals' private lives."
How should those who disagree with Kennedy's position react to it? By
explaining on the merits why they believe he's wrong? Or by calling
him names -- a "gay-loving fanatic," say, or an "immoral pervert"?

A third option: They could become intelligent enough to realize
that SSM is 100% harmless and REVERSE their stance.

Post by Michael Ejercito
It's a no-brainer. Only a demagogue believes that the controversy over
same-sex marriage can be improved by hurling insults at those who
radically want to change the meaning of matrimony.

Marriage is MARRIAGE. Gender composition is TRIVIAL. Thus,
ending the irrational EXCLUSION of gays from it is *not* a "radical
change."

Post by Michael Ejercito
Even if you think they are wrong, there is no reason to doubt that
most Americans who favor legalizing gay and lesbian marriages con-
sider it an issue of fairness and tolerance.

And that is precisely what it IS.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Their arguments should be challenged with facts and logic, not vitriol.

However, NO *FACTS* even EXIST that can make a sensible
argument against totally-harmless SSM. Which is why the opponents
are LOSING -- BIG-time. Society is FAST figuring that out!

Post by Michael Ejercito
Anyone who slandered Kennedy with slurs like those above would
be considered contemptible, and rightly so.
It is just as contemptible when the slurs and slander are hurled in
the other direction.
"A vote for this amendment," Kennedy has said repeatedly, "is a vote
for bigotry, pure and simple."

He was RIGHT. And he called a spade a spade. Bigots DESERVE
to be called bigots, since they are completely without excuse.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Like so many on his side of the debate, he insists that supporters of
the marriage amendment are fanatics and haters -- knuckle-draggers
from "the rabid reactionary right" who want to "stain the Constitution
with their language of bigotry," as he put it the last time the Senate
took up the issue.

My admiration for him just now increased 2,000%!!

Post by Michael Ejercito
If you are strongly committed to the traditional understanding of
marriage as the union of husband and wife, in other words, you aren't
just wrong -- you're evil. You aren't fit to debate with, only to
demonize.

That sums it up quite FAIRLY.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Kennedy and his allies don't want to consider your point of view,
and they don't want anyone else considering it either.

For the same reason we/they had/have NO interest in considering
the point of view of the Nazis. It is ABSURD to accord any credibility
to people who have disregard for civil & human rights.

Post by Michael Ejercito
And they know that there is no better way to make a viewpoint so
toxic that decent Americans shun it than to portray it as the equiva-
lent of racism and prejudice.

Precisely. Opposition to SSM is the EQUIVALENT of that.

Post by Michael Ejercito
But if it's "bigotry, pure and simple" not to want same-sex marriage
to be forced on American society by a handful of crusading courts...

BZZZzzztttt!!! ---

(1) It is IMPOSSIBLE to "FORCE" * **FREEDOM** upon anyone.
When a freedom is accorded, all people have the capability to
access it or pass on it. It has NO adverse affect on those
who pass on it, and it is enjoyed by those who access it. No
harm, no foul!

(2) Appellate courts have been very BENEFICIAL to the American
people, very consistently, in coming down in FAVOR of support-
ing and according liberties. Quite possibly the Dred Scott dec-
ision had a silver lining -- SHAMING the courts into never again
making such a horrible mistake!! And the court OFTEN are 'way
ahead of the curve in according FAIRNESS, and saving society
a LOT of grief! E.g., Roe vs. Wade. WITHOUT that, the BEST
act of EMANICPAION since Abraham Lincoln, America would
still today -- almost 40 years later -- be a hodgepodge of FREE
states and REPRESSIVE states! The Supreme Court did Amer-
ica a HUGE favor! Just as it did earlier (1967) with "Loving vs.
Virginia" and later (2003) with "Lawrence vs. Texas." That
Court was HEROIC -- except for the *HUGE* stain of "Bush vs.
Gore!" Which, tragically, can NEVER be undone!

Post by Michael Ejercito
...then among the bigots must be the large congressional majority -- 85
senators, 342 representatives -- who passed the Defense of Marriage
Act in 1996, confirming that marriage in the United States is between
members of the opposite sex only and allowing states to deny
recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Former
President Bill Clinton must be a bigot too: He signed the bill into
law.

So-called "DOMA" laws are the worst ones since Jim Crow!! The
Federal DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional, and i think that
very SOON we will see the states REPEALING those hate-laws such
that they fall like a row of dominoes!

Clinton signed the federal DOMA *only* to avoid a certain OVER-
RIDE if he vetoed it. And today, Clinton openly ADVOCATES Marriage
Equality!

Post by Michael Ejercito
The bigots must also include the dozens of American religious leaders
who signed the Religious Coalition for Marriage statement endorsing
the marriage amendment.

Well, DUH!!! What else can we expect from RRR & LDS cultists?

Post by Michael Ejercito
The list of signatories is remarkably ecumenical -- Roman Catholic
cardinals, Greek and Russian Orthodox primates, the president of
the National Association of Evangelicals, Jewish rabbis, an apostle
of the Mormon church, the president of the Coalition of African-
American Pastors, the editor of Christianity Today, and many others.
Bigots all, apparently.

Bigots *mostly*, OBVIOUSLY!

Post by Michael Ejercito
Vastly more numerous are voters in the 19 states where constitutional
amendments securing the definition of marriage have been put on the
ballot. "In every case," as President Bush observed this week, "the
amendments were approved by decisive majorities, with an average of
71%." All told, 45 of the 50 states either have adopted constitutional
amendments or enacted laws meant to keep the timeless meaning of
marriage from being undone.

"To keep the timeless meaning of marriage from being undone." (??)

That's the most OBVIOUS proof yet that this is a BIASED article!

And -- BTW -- how can it be "45 states" when SIX states now have
legal Marriage Equality? Since when do we have 51 states??

Tragically, enough people in those bigoted states were CONNED by
the massive efforts to propagandize people and lay scare tactics and
LIES on them, by the RRR and LDS Cults. With good luck, that will
NEVER happen again. And HERE is a GOOD example *why* ---

http://www.egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html

Study the Table and the Maps WELL. And LEARN!

Post by Michael Ejercito
If Kennedy is right, all those states, all those lawmakers, all those
voters should be despised as bigots.

Kennedy was right. But people can LEARM, and OUTGROW
bigotry. That is happening today at an accelerating pace! Before
much longer, the hate-agendas against gay rights will be as EXTINCT
as segregation, and any openly-bigoted people that remain will be
social PARIAHS. Very deservedly.

Post by Michael Ejercito
But Kennedy isn't right.

Wrong. See my last paragraph, above.

Post by Michael Ejercito
It is not bigotry to insist that there is a good reason why marriage
has existed in every known human society...

...INCLUDING ones in the O.T. when *polygamy* and having
concubines on the side was commonplace, acceptable, and legal,
just as still is the case in many countries today.

Post by Michael Ejercito
...and why it has always involved the uniting of men and women.

SLAVERY was *traditional* in the USA and before that, in the
colonies, for hundreds of years. Just as we GOT RID of that worth-
less "tradition," we can ALSO get rid of the "tradition" of according
a SPECIAL right to opposite-sex couples to EXCLUDE same-sex
couples from marriage.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Family structure matters, and children are more likely to suffer
problems when they are not raised by their married mothers and
fathers.

HALF of America's children today are being raised by SINGLE
parents... and the writer of this piece of TRIPE is WHINING about
kids who are lucky enough to have two gay parents INSTEAD?!?

Post by Michael Ejercito
It is not bigotry to resist the dishonest comparison of same-sex
marriage to interracial marriage.

Wrong! That is an HONEST comparison. BOTH cases had/have
to do with the EXCLUSION from marriage of groups of people who
should NEVER have been hatefully excluded from it!

Post by Michael Ejercito
-- skin color has nothing to do with wedlock, while sex is
fundamental to it.

Really?? I wonder if this writer bothered to check the stats on
opposite-sex married couples who NEVER have sex? Tens of MIL-
LIONS of them!!

Post by Michael Ejercito
And it is not bigotry to fear that a social change as radical as
same-sex marriage...

"Radical." ROTFL!!!!

Post by Michael Ejercito
...could lead to grave and unintended consequences, from the
persecution of religious institutions...

Even though a LOT of today's so-called "religious institutions"
richly DESERVE to be **set straight**, same-sex marriage will
effect NO such reforms. NO churches are being FORCED to
perform marriages for gay couples -- and at bottom, ALL mar-
riages, gay and straight, are STATE-sanctioned and -licensed.
By law!

Post by Michael Ejercito
... to a growing clamor for legalizing polygamy.

Advocates of polygamy will still seek it, with or without the
legalization of SSM. And if polygamy CAN work in this society,
that would be NO big deal!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 6 websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- BRAND-NEW 2011 Edition!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html -- Searchable Database
of the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human Rights! KNOW the
enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the enemies, as much
as it is legally possible to do so!

Michael Ejercito

2011-07-11 16:31:45 UTC

Permalink

On Jul 10, 11:36 pm, "( ` . Craig Chilton . ) <http://

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:40:37 -0700 (PDT),

Post by Michael Ejercito
Their arguments should be challenged with facts and logic, not vitriol.

However, NO *FACTS* even EXIST that can make a sensible
argument against totally-harmless SSM. Which is why the opponents
are LOSING -- BIG-time. Society is FAST figuring that out!

No facts even exist that can make a sensible argument as to why
calling same-sex committed unions something other than marriage is
wrong.

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

He was RIGHT. And he called a spade a spade. Bigots DESERVE
to be called bigots, since they are completely without excuse.

My admiration for him just now increased 2,000%!!

That sums it up quite FAIRLY.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Kennedy and his allies don't want to consider your point of view,
and they don't want anyone else considering it either.

For the same reason we/they had/have NO interest in considering
the point of view of the Nazis. It is ABSURD to accord any credibility
to people who have disregard for civil & human rights.

So then people who believe that marriage is between one man and one
woman are the moral equivalent of Nazis?

Michael

(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

2011-07-11 20:30:13 UTC

Permalink

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT),

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

Post by Michael Ejercito
Their arguments should be challenged with facts and logic, not vitriol.

However, NO *FACTS* even EXIST that can make a sensible
argument against totally-harmless SSM. Which is why the opponents
are LOSING -- BIG-time. Society is FAST figuring that out!

No facts even exist that can make a sensible argument as to why
calling same-sex committed unions something other than marriage is
wrong.

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>

He was RIGHT. And he called a spade a spade. Bigots DESERVE
to be called bigots, since they are completely without excuse.

My admiration for him just now increased 2,000%!!

That sums it up quite FAIRLY.

Post by Michael Ejercito
Kennedy and his allies don't want to consider your point of view,
and they don't want anyone else considering it either.

For the same reason we/they had/have NO interest in considering
the point of view of the Nazis. It is ABSURD to accord any credibility
to people who have disregard for civil & human rights.

So then people who believe that marriage is between one man and
one woman are the moral equivalent of Nazis?

Short of murdering people (as the Nazis did)... if they seek to FORCE
same-sex couples to be EXCLUDED from marriage -- YES!

The Nazis were all about being control-freaks who DEPRIVED
millions of people of reasonable rights and liberties. In THAT regard,
the RRR and LDS cultists are NO better. They are totally without
excuse, and are FAST reaching the Laughingstock Stage with most
Americans. In a few more years, after their hate-agendas are
EXTINCT, they will forever thereafter be at the social PARIAH Stage.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

By a Water Cooler in 2035, Somewhere in the USA

Friend #1 -- "Can you remember when there was a hate-spewing
TV Network that lyingly called itself, 'Fox NEWS?'"

Friend #2 -- "Yeah... barely. That was populated by a collection
of bigoted loons who actually were STUPID enough
to oppose the same-sex marriage and the remedy of
abortion that we just take for granted today, wasn't
it? The wacko cable network that intelligent people
back then more properly referred to as 'FAUX News?'
How long has it been now, since they were laughed
off the air? About 20 years?"

Friend #3 -- "Uh-huh. That happened soon after the Supreme Court
ended the hateful EXCLUSION of marriage from same-
sex couples. After that, those bigoted loons' level
of respectability became equal to that of the equally-
hateful and ignorant segregationists, of 50 years
earlier. And NO one wanted to have anything to
do any more with such doltish losers after that. It's
been a FAR better world since THEIR agendas went
extinct!"

Friend #1 -- "Indeed!! Good riddance to PUTRID rubbish!"

= = = = = = = =

In 1959, when I first read George Orwell's "1984," that date
was, to me, in the far-flung future!

In 1968, when I watched the movie, "2001," a Space Odyssey,"
that date was, to me, in the far-flung future.

The years lay 25 and 33 years ahead, respectively.

They both got here in seemingly NO time! And now, 1984 is
already 27 years in the PAST!

And millions of us remember the Chernobyl meltdown and the
Challenger explosion like they happened yesterday -- and THEY
both happened 25 years ago as this is written.

SO... 2035 -- The year I predicted above -- will be here FAST!

And the homophobes' will be nothing but an occasionally-
remembered, sick JOKE. Just like the segregationists. It's right
around the corner. Inevitably and IRREVOCABLY right around the
corner. Just as I'm predicting it, based upon historical precedents
cited in the scenario above.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Rest in Peace
George Richard Tiller, MD
A True American HERO!
August 8, 1941 May 31, 2009
Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!

Mitchell Holman

2011-07-11 03:27:09 UTC

Permalink

On Jul 10, 7:19 am, "(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) <http://

Post by (Â¯`Â·.Å¾ Craig Chilton Å¾.Â·Å½Â¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:04:25 -0400,
BIGOTED LOWLIFE, BILL TAYLOR,

Forty states have passed laws or have made Constitutional
amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Here you go again equating the definition of marriage as a "union
for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"
with hate.

You haven't spent much time in divorce court, have you......