THAT is the rub ... and eventually will come to pass regardless of the 'protests' to the contrary. Look at 'history' if you are in doubt.
This is PRECISELY why those wanting to 'protect' (whatever that means) marriage are better served focusing their attention on REMOVING the Government from the equation entirely. Government has only inserted itself in recent history (and like everything else, it was 'innocently' as an effort to prevent certain people from marrying).
It is the ADVANTAGES provided to 'married couples' that are the REAL issue. Eliminate the 'advantages' (or perception) and few will seek to garner them.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
At 09:11 AM 2/8/2012, you wrote:
Should a married gay couple in Massachusetts have hospital visitation
rights as a spouse, be able to file taxes jointly, and get spousal
benefits upon death?
On Feb 8, 8:30 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Proposition 8, nor any of the other state initiatives that I am familiar
> with, are not attempting to treat "different classes of people,
> differently". What the legislation similar to Prop 8 and others are
> attempting to do, is to prohibit individuals from carving out more rights,
> additional privileges, "Special Rights" if you will, from State
> Constitutions and State Code, that other individuals.
>
> Currently, any man or woman can marry any other man or woman that they so
> choose to marry. No law prohibits that; e.g.; any man can go and marry
> any woman, or any woman can go and marry any man, as is the definition of
> "Marriage". What the militant, secularist Gay agenda is attempting to do,
> is to carve out additional rights and privileges, by allowing certain
> individuals to redefine "marriage", thereby giving special rights and
> privileges to a few people who claim that they want to "marry" within their
> gender. That's not marriage, from a legal standpoint, and it is clearly
> not marriage, from an ecclesiastical standpoint.
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Government has no business in the marriage issue.
> > --------------------------------------------
>
> > You'll get no argument from me. A dem gave us DOMA, and n now they
> > all spout about how terrible it is, and do NOTHING about it.
>
> > And yes, there are rights attached to marriage, from taxes to
> > hospitals to death.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment