"Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > [ . . . ]
    >> All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
    >> people.
    > Absolutely! Homosexuals ("gay people") have exactly the same rights as
    > everyone else.
    >> And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people, they
    >> why not let them be married?
    > They *can* be married! Where did you ever get the idea that they couldn't?
    > There are many homosexuals who are married, and under precisely the same
    > conditions as heterosexuals.
    >> Where is your common sense and sense of justice, man?
    > Where's the injustice? The same rules and conditions apply to all.
    > Neil
If the above is true, then where is the controversy? The news services have
been talking about something for the last few months.....Exactly what have
they been talking about?
We had a proposition on our ballot here in Oregon a few months ago. - It
was to disallow gay marriages.....It passed by 2 to 1. (Much to my disgust)
And this is a liberal, democratic (blue) state.

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:RtudnfWhf-vNsUzZnZ2dnUVZ_t-

    >You have a strange idea of what the, "spirit of the document" means when it
    >comes to constitutional law........but that's not surprising to
    >me......Also, the fact that the law has already been interpreted by the
    >supreme court, does not make it right. - Only "legal".

That is what our Courts have ruled. Your private judgment is not bigger
than a court interpretation.

Every time two sides argue a case in the federal appellate court system, one
side or the other comes away the loser. And we all get on with our lives
and move forward from there.

Or we can do it the way they do in Columbia . . .

"Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]. ..
    > [ . . . ]
    >> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional.
    > That's like saying a ban on men giving birth is "blatently [sic]
    > unconstitutional."
    > Marriage is, and always has been, the legal union of a man and a woman.
    > That's not a matter of anything being banned or not banned, legal or
    > illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, it's a matter of definition.
    > What "gay" (meaning homosexual -- not cheerful, lighthearted, merry,
    > bright or lively) activists want is to change the definition, just as they
    > have pretty thoroughly done with "gay."
    > If marriage can, willy nilly, be made to mean something it never meant
    > before, why stop at homosexual couples? Why, for example, shouldn't a
    > shepherd be able to marry his ewe?
    > For that matter, I remember reading many years ago about a fellow who
    > wanted to marry his television set. How he expected this to enhance his
    > relationship with the boob tube I have no idea, but I don't think he
    > succeeded in getting a marriage license. How unfair! How
    > "unconstitutional"! What narrow-mindedness and bigotry!
    > Neil
When the IRS set up a separate tax table for, "married couples" they took
"marriage" out of the realm of religious ritual, and put it directly into
the public domain. - That means it is no longer, "the legal union of a man
and a woman." It is now a contractual state that is (or should be) available
to any two law abiding citizens. If the government wants to return marriage
to the religious realm, then they should remove the word from all public
documents, buildings and etc. It should not be in the domain of
non-contractual law. (whatever you call that kind of law) It should exist
only in church documents, and there should be no public building where I
would have to go, and stand in line, and pay $10 (or whatever) in order to
get a "marriage license"......No public record should record the fact that I
am "married". - The very word, "marriage" should not exist in the legal
vocabulary of common law as long as we remain a non-theocracy.

"Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > [ . . . ]
    >> All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
    >> people.
    > Absolutely! Homosexuals ("gay people") have exactly the same rights as
    > everyone else.
    >> And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people, they
    >> why not let them be married?
    > They *can* be married! Where did you ever get the idea that they couldn't?
    > There are many homosexuals who are married, and under precisely the same
    > conditions as heterosexuals.
    >> Where is your common sense and sense of justice, man?
    > Where's the injustice? The same rules and conditions apply to all.
    > Neil

In the US only Massachusetts marries same sex couples, and that may change.
There is a movement afoot to amend the state constitution to prohibit it.
Just a couple of weeks ago their state supreme court ruled against a group
of plaintiffs that were trying to block the matter from coming up on the
ballot, claiming that it violated the rights of gays. The Court ruled that
the people were free to try to amend their constitution, just as the pro-gay
marriage advocates would also be free to try to effect an amendment.

Right now, 45 of the 50 states have either passed legislation or have
amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. And, on the federal
level, the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land. It allows states
to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were contracted in other
states. So, right now, same-sex married people in Massachusetts must remain
in-state if they want to retain their legal status as married.

There is no point in debating it--that is the law in America right now. For
someone to suggest that his private views are superior to those of our
legislatures, our court decisions and our electorate is pure nonsense. One
might just as much declare himself President--just don't expect to move into
the White House . . .

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > If the above is true, then where is the controversy? The news services
    > have been talking about something for the last few months.....Exactly what
    > have they been talking about?
    > We had a proposition on our ballot here in Oregon a few months ago. -
    > It was to disallow gay marriages.....It passed by 2 to 1. (Much to my
    > disgust) And this is a liberal, democratic (blue) state.

Your State Supreme Court ruled just last week that the ban against Gay
marriage was NOT unconstitutional. Two of the justices noted in the ruling
that the state had a bona fide interest in defending marriage.

Your state's voters spoke out loudly, when they voted to ban gay marriage by
a huge margin.

You may disagree with your fellow citizens and with the Court rulings, but
that is democracy, and we will have winners and losers on any question such
as this. In this case, your side happened to lose. Get over it.

"Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > If marriage can, willy nilly, be made to mean something it never meant
    > before, why stop at homosexual couples? Why, for example, shouldn't a
    > shepherd be able to marry his ewe?
    > For that matter, I remember reading many years ago about a fellow who
    > wanted to marry his television set. How he expected this to enhance his
    > relationship with the boob tube I have no idea, but I don't think he
    > succeeded in getting a marriage license. How unfair! How
    > "unconstitutional"! What narrow-mindedness and bigotry!
    > Neil
If he could get his ewe or TV set to sign the contract, then I see no reason
why he shouldn't be married to it. Marriage should be only a contractual
arrangement between any two parties.....Nothing more. As a matter of fact,
it is becoming more and more unpopular.....Many people today are living
together without the benefit of marriage. (I am one) The IRS has made
marriage financially disadvantageous, for one thing. As usual, anything the
government messes with, eventually gets so screwed up that people learn to
shun it.

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > But it is the liberal who insists that the law is right and must be obeyed
    > simply because it is the law. I maintain that many laws are wrong, and
    > responsible people should disobey them. To obey them when you know that
    > they are wrong is to subvert your responsibility for your own convenience.
    > See, "Judgment at Nuremberg".........

Please do not compare our democratically-established laws to those of Nazi
Germany!

You make light of our democracy when you say things like that.

Just because YOU disagree with the majority of voters in your state (and
also with subsequent state court rulings that upheld the majority view) does
not mean that your private judgment prevails.

Your state supreme court ruled just last week that this was a matter for the
PEOPLE to decide, not the state courts.

If you want to overturn that ruling, you will need a state constitutional
amendment.

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > Who said they were, "repainted"? - That is your word, not mine.....Chris,
    > you really should read what I write more carefully. You might learn a lot
    > of things that you presently know nothing about.

I certainly hope that you don't try to teach him anything regarding legal
matters.

"Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]. ..
    > [ . . . ]
    >> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional.
    > That's like saying a ban on men giving birth is "blatently [sic]
    > unconstitutional."

No comparison at all. Laws that are concern themselves with physical
impossibilities are just ridiculous, mainly because they are impossible to
enforce.

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:sK%zg.7709$oz.6967@trnddc07...
    >> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> Laws, and their implementation are a political issue. And believe me, I
    >>> am well prepared for it.....I have been living with the stupidity of it
    >>> all of my life, and things are getting worse, not better. - It's called,
    >>> "Lack of discrimination", and it's the mark of the dumbing down of
    >>> America........The very idea that you can't make a law without
    >>> exceptions is a stupid idea. If I am crossing the desert on my
    >>> motorcycle, and I come across a person dying of thirst, can I tie them
    >>> to me and carry them to water, or must I leave them there because I
    >>> don't carry an extra helmet with me, and the law says, "You can't ride
    >>> on a motorcycle without a helmet....No exceptions"?
    >> Are you arguing that a museum is barred from setting restrictions on
    >> photography within its walls?
    > I am arguing that a taxpayer supported museum must, (or at least should)
    > be beholden to the needs of the taxpayers who support it.
    >> That is their right. One's purchase of an admission does not confer the
    >> right to photograph anything without permission.
    > And exactly whose, "permission" should the taxpayers be beholden too? - I
    > claim that as a taxpayer, I am the one who should determine who should use
    > the museum, and exactly how it should be used. - Otherwise, please give me
    > my money back, thank you........

Aren't we discussing EUROPEAN museums? By what stretch of the imagination
do YOU consider yourself a "taxpayer" with respect to foreign-operated
institutions?

Do you have a problem dealing with authority? You have made some statements
of late that sound as though you feel that you are above things like the
rule of law.

The museum may set its own rules, and they do not require your consent or
permission. You are free to decline to visit any institution whose policies
you disagree with.

As Yogi Berra said, "If the PEOPLE don't want to come out to the ball park,
ain't nobody going to stop 'em!"

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:ZP%zg.7711$oz.5967@trnddc07...
    >> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]. ..
    >>> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
    >>> separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that
    >>> time on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why
    >>> the idiots on the supreme court haven't said that.
    >> The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks
    >> that there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The
    >> ruling was handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were
    >> being denied what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
    >> You are confusing two things:
    >> 1: What you want.
    >> 2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
    >> If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the
    >> land, that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license
    >> bureaus across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to
    >> same sex couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate
    >> court rulings.
    >> Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and
    >> state high courts.
    > And the fact that the IRS has a separate tax table for married couples
    > doesn't say anything to you? - You have a strange idea of what the,
    > "spirit of the document" means when it comes to constitutional
    > law........but that's not surprising to me.


I believe that things like court rulings remain the law of the land and must
be obeyed.

That is not strange--it is simply support of the concept of the rule of law.
There are established procedures to change bad laws. Your way is anarchy.

"jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:HUaAg.7776$oz.1209@trnddc07...
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> If the above is true, then where is the controversy? The news services
    >> have been talking about something for the last few months.....Exactly
    >> what have they been talking about?
    >> We had a proposition on our ballot here in Oregon a few months ago. -
    >> It was to disallow gay marriages.....It passed by 2 to 1. (Much to my
    >> disgust) And this is a liberal, democratic (blue) state.
    > Your State Supreme Court ruled just last week that the ban against Gay
    > marriage was NOT unconstitutional. Two of the justices noted in the
    > ruling that the state had a bona fide interest in defending marriage.
    > Your state's voters spoke out loudly, when they voted to ban gay marriage
    > by a huge margin.
    > You may disagree with your fellow citizens and with the Court rulings, but
    > that is democracy, and we will have winners and losers on any question
    > such as this. In this case, your side happened to lose. Get over it.
This is not a "Democracy". It is a "Constitutional Republic". That means the
majority only rules within the restraints of the Constitution. If I
circulated a petition to take all of Jeremy's money away from him, and
distribute it to everyone else, and everybody signed it so it got on the
ballot, and everybody (except you) voted for it, then you would legally be
made broke. The constitution is what protects you from that. And the
constitution will eventually protect the right of gay couples to
marry......Take my word for it, Jeremy.....It has to be, eventually. If it
doesn't happen, then this country is in very big trouble. The thing that
astounds me is that you, and others like you, can't understand that.
Apparently, your religion has clouded your understanding of the spirit of
the document called the Constitution. It doesn't surprise me. I have watched
it happening all of my life. Back in the 60'd the people of California voted
to prevent some guy from renting space on the telephone poles and running
cable TV wires to people's houses, (if they wanted him to.) Of course, the
supreme court threw it out. But I was surprised that the people of
California were that stupid, even back in the 60's......Today, people are
even more stupid.....Things are getting worse, not better.....

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > When the IRS set up a separate tax table for, "married couples" they took
    > "marriage" out of the realm of religious ritual, and put it directly into
    > the public domain. - That means it is no longer, "the legal union of a man
    > and a woman." It is now a contractual state that is (or should be)
    > available to any two law abiding citizens.

HOW do you come up with silly legal opinions like that?

In the US, marriage laws are set by the various states. That is why there
are different waiting periods, different blood test requirements, different
restrictions on marrying cousins, etc.

The IRS tax regulations do not define what marriage is.

Really, you show your ignorance of the facts when you make absurd and
misinformed statements like that.

Stick to cameras. You aren't any Oliver Wendell Holmes.

"jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wRaAg.7774$oz.7475@trnddc07...
    > "Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]. ..
    >> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> [ . . . ]
    >>> All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
    >>> people.
    >> Absolutely! Homosexuals ("gay people") have exactly the same rights as
    >> everyone else.
    >>> And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people, they
    >>> why not let them be married?
    >> They *can* be married! Where did you ever get the idea that they
    >> couldn't? There are many homosexuals who are married, and under precisely
    >> the same conditions as heterosexuals.
    >>> Where is your common sense and sense of justice, man?
    >> Where's the injustice? The same rules and conditions apply to all.
    >> Neil
    > In the US only Massachusetts marries same sex couples, and that may
    > change. There is a movement afoot to amend the state constitution to
    > prohibit it. Just a couple of weeks ago their state supreme court ruled
    > against a group of plaintiffs that were trying to block the matter from
    > coming up on the ballot, claiming that it violated the rights of gays.
    > The Court ruled that the people were free to try to amend their
    > constitution, just as the pro-gay marriage advocates would also be free to
    > try to effect an amendment.
    > Right now, 45 of the 50 states have either passed legislation or have
    > amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. And, on the federal
    > level, the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land. It allows
    > states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were contracted in
    > other states. So, right now, same-sex married people in Massachusetts
    > must remain in-state if they want to retain their legal status as married.
    > There is no point in debating it--that is the law in America right now.
    > For someone to suggest that his private views are superior to those of our
    > legislatures, our court decisions and our electorate is pure nonsense.
    > One might just as much declare himself President--just don't expect to
    > move into the White House . . .
Anyone with any common sense at all would know that his/her private views
are "superior to those of our legislatures." I certainly know that mine are.
That's why I have to watch those dudes every minute, and am continuously
writing letters bitching to them about some stupidity or other that they are
contemplating. If you think that they are so smart, then you should pack up
and move to Iran or someplace like that, where everything the government
does is right by definition........But not to worry....It may not be too
long before they come over here and save you the trouble.......

"jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zKaAg.7771$oz.1805@trnddc07...
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:RtudnfWhf-vNsUzZnZ2dnUVZ_t-
    >>You have a strange idea of what the, "spirit of the document" means when
    >>it comes to constitutional law........but that's not surprising to
    >>me......Also, the fact that the law has already been interpreted by the
    >>supreme court, does not make it right. - Only "legal".
    > That is what our Courts have ruled. Your private judgment is not bigger
    > than a court interpretation.

I never said, "bigger"....Only, "better".

    > Every time two sides argue a case in the federal appellate court system,
    > one side or the other comes away the loser. And we all get on with our
    > lives and move forward from there.

True, but sometimes those lives aren't quite as good as they were before the
decision........


    > Or we can do it the way they do in Columbia . . .
Or we can improve on both....."All that is necessary for the forces of evil
to win out in this world, is for enough good men to do nothing....."