Re: Court: CA Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

DOMA makes no mention of religion. It defines the term legally.

On Feb 9, 9:04 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:37 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> "a definition that doesn't include gays is wrong"
>
> ========
>
> Unfortunately,  you don't get to make that decision.  You can hold that
> opinion, but the fact remains that NO Western Religion, (*e.g*.;  Judaism,
> Christianity, or Islam)  and NO  Eastern Religion,  (Hindi,  Bhuddism)
>  acknowledges or accepts a marriage as anything other than between a man
> and a woman.
>
> To say that the definition of the term:  "marriage"  is wrong, is no
> different than saying that the definition of a "giraffe" is incorrect; that
> "Bears"  are "Giraffes".  That the definition of "murder"  is incorrect;
> that "murder"  means "eating ice cream".  That the term "pants"  should
> include "shirt".  It makes no sense.   Your logic is illogical.
>
>
>
> > If It were up to me,  I would in fact remove government from any
> > involvement in marriage,
> > ---
> > we agree again
>
> >  which should be between a man, a woman and their
> > God,  period.
> > ---
> > putting a myth between a man and a woman is supposed to be good?
>
> >  The problem today,  is that a secularist and predominately
> > militant Gay movement is attempting to push the redefinition of
> > marriage
> > down the proverbial throats of Americans,
> > ---
> > a definition that doesn't include gays is wrong
>
> > On Feb 8, 10:16 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey Greg,
>
> > > Mark pretty much summed it up and I think accurately.  Michael is correct
> > > in that government,  (the First State was California followed by
> > > Connecticut)  who got into the regulation of marriage,  and it was
> > > literally to prevent miscegenation.
>
> > > I don't think that is the case today, in the New Milennium.  The purpose
> > of
> > > government being involved in the contractual arrangement of marriage is
> > two
> > > or three fold.  FIrst,  it is a revenue generator,  (albeit a modest
> > > revenue generator).  Second,  because of the amount of divorces, and the
> > > burden that these contract place upon the judiciary, there has to be some
> > > modicum of regulation.
>
> > > As stated on each and every time this subject pops up,  I am not opposed
> > to
> > > civil unions for Gays,  and for those heterosexual couples who are
> > looking
> > > for some type of acknowledgement of their union, who do not understand or
> > > believe in the tenets of marriage from a  ecclesiastical standpoint.
>
> > > If It were up to me,  I would in fact remove government from any
> > > involvement in marriage, which should be between a man, a woman and their
> > > God,  period.  The problem today,  is that a secularist and predominately
> > > militant Gay movement is attempting to push the redefinition of marriage
> > > down the proverbial throats of Americans, and this is to further their
> > > secularist agenda, as well as to normalize the Gay, homosexual agenda.
>
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > There are no hospital visitation "RIGHTS". There is only hospital
> > > > policy. That policy is normally in line with the patients exact stated
> > > > wishes.
>
> > > > Taxes (I assume Federal)...The Feds may make any rule they wish as may
> > > > the States. Marriage is a permitted activity. If a State allows Gay
> > > > marriage then the State tax forms can be filed jointly. If the Feds do
> > > > not allow Gay marriage then the inverse is true. These are totally
> > > > different systems.
>
> > > > Spousal benefits... again... State and Federal are two different
> > > > systems.
>
> > > > On Feb 8, 8:11 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> 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 seehttp://
> > 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 seehttp://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.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://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.