Wednesday, February 15, 2012

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

Uhm.....Michael?  Are you married?  If not, then you too do not have, (and I quote)  "ADVANTAGES bestowed on SOME covenants";  as Mark has been stressing and pointing out, marriage is not any right;  marriage is an ecclesiastical function, of which local governments administer and "permit".
 
Here's another dilemma for you to chew on:  South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and other States allow for "Common Law Marriages".  They are accepted, and one needs to "divorce" if in fact they have been acknowledged in a common law marriage.   Florida does not accept "Common Law" marriages,  and if you have been declared to be in a "Common Law Marriage";  no matter what State,  Florida does not accept this as a marriage.....There is no divorce within the Florida Court system for those who have been declared "married"  in "Common Law".   

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:55 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.

--
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