Re: CPAC: Thanks to Anti-gay Mitt Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts

MJ what you wrote there is very nice. It also does not apply to state issued PERMITS where ALL affected have absolutely  the same identical options. The Gay community wants those options expanded. The majority of people do not want the options expanded. 

The inequality of Federal and State laws are not pertinent. A quick look at the difference in permits between D.C. (Federal Territory) and any of the surrounding communities points this out... the rules are very, very different. Some say those differences are advantages and some say they are the devil incarnate and patently unfair. I can't place a mobile, or modular home in DC. They are discriminating against the poor. I can't simply tear down that old house in DC to build a new one... I must refurbish.. patently unfair to the wealthy that desire something modern. This discrimination based on my wealth or lack of it is also not fair... but it is NOT unconstitutional or illegal. 

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:55 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

 
To date, IN ANY STATE, there is no discrimination against homosexuals living as a couple, that a few legal documents, such as a living will, a last will, and documents allowing for the sharing of of financial portfolios and accounts would remedy.   This fact in and of itself, establishes my point, that there is a secular movement in an attempt to force mainstream America to accept "gay marriage" as being the only recourse to allow homosexuals to be "equal".  In fact, this is nothing but a ploy to try and force the gay lifestyle upon Americans as being "normal"; and anyone who opposes such a radical change in the definition of "Marriage" are homophobic. 
 

What you have are ADVANTAGES bestowed on SOME covenants while others are not provided them.
If history is a guide, this will be a LOSER to those wanting to 'protect' marriage (whatever that means).
The problem with DOMA is that it circumvents AIVS1C1 (among other problems of lacking constitutional authority/power).

Those wanting to 'protect' marriage (whatever that means) would be more prudent in their efforts were they seeking to REMOVE Government from the equation rather than seeking to use it as the club.

Regard$,
--MJ

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.  -- Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.