bobandcarole wrote:
Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to
marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a
bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's his or her uncontested right.

How strange for those who rant and rave about the "sanctity of
marriage" to demand that homosexuals marry someone they couldn't
possibly love. It sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage far
more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the fundamentalist
ones.

The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the
person of their choosing. Homosexuals do not.

snip

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to
form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer
outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. Allow them the same rights
and privileges in their relationships that married people have.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Calling a two-partner union a "marriage" for heterosexuals but a "civil
union" for homosexuals reeks of the failed doctrine of "separate but
equal." See Brown vs Board of Education for what the Supreme Court
thinks of "separate but equal" with respect to equal protection under
the law.

Finally, in many locations where two-partner unions exist that aren't
classified as "marriage" the actual set of rights, responsibilities,
and privileges associated with those unions falls short of those
recognized in marriage. Not only are these unions separate, they're
also UNequal.

Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to
marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a
bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's his or her uncontested right.

How strange for those who rant and rave about the "sanctity of
marriage" to demand that homosexuals marry someone they couldn't
possibly love. It sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage far
more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the fundamentalist
ones.

The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the
person of their choosing. Homosexuals do not.

snip

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to
form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer
outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. Allow them the same rights
and privileges in their relationships that married people have.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Calling a two-partner union a "marriage" for heterosexuals but a "civil
union" for homosexuals reeks of the failed doctrine of "separate but
equal." See Brown vs Board of Education for what the Supreme Court
thinks of "separate but equal" with respect to equal protection under
the law.

Finally, in many locations where two-partner unions exist that aren't
classified as "marriage" the actual set of rights, responsibilities,
and privileges associated with those unions falls short of those
recognized in marriage. Not only are these unions separate, they're
also UNequal.

mar·riage [ mrj ]
n.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:54:19 +1000, "two bob"
wrote in message ...

Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to
marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a
bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's his or her uncontested right.

How strange for those who rant and rave about the "sanctity of
marriage" to demand that homosexuals marry someone they couldn't
possibly love. It sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage far
more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the fundamentalist
ones.

The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the
person of their choosing. Homosexuals do not.

snip

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to
form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer
outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. Allow them the same rights
and privileges in their relationships that married people have.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Calling a two-partner union a "marriage" for heterosexuals but a "civil
union" for homosexuals reeks of the failed doctrine of "separate but
equal." See Brown vs Board of Education for what the Supreme Court
thinks of "separate but equal" with respect to equal protection under
the law.

Finally, in many locations where two-partner unions exist that aren't
classified as "marriage" the actual set of rights, responsibilities,
and privileges associated with those unions falls short of those
recognized in marriage. Not only are these unions separate, they're
also UNequal.

mar·riage [ mrj ]
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry:
The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife
in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Definitions mean nothing. They change all the time.

--
Bushism 3-13:
"And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find something to
be pessimistic about, you can find it no matter how hard you look, you know?"
--Washington D.C.; June 15, 2004

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:54:19 +1000, "two bob" wrote in
message

Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to
marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a
bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's his or her uncontested right.

How strange for those who rant and rave about the "sanctity of
marriage" to demand that homosexuals marry someone they couldn't
possibly love. It sounds as though the homosexuals take marriage far
more seriously than the heterosexuals do, especially the fundamentalist
ones.

The fact is that heterosexuals presently have the right to marry the
person of their choosing. Homosexuals do not.

snip

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to
form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer
outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. Allow them the same rights
and privileges in their relationships that married people have.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Calling a two-partner union a "marriage" for heterosexuals but a "civil
union" for homosexuals reeks of the failed doctrine of "separate but
equal." See Brown vs Board of Education for what the Supreme Court
thinks of "separate but equal" with respect to equal protection under
the law.

Finally, in many locations where two-partner unions exist that aren't
classified as "marriage" the actual set of rights, responsibilities,
and privileges associated with those unions falls short of those
recognized in marriage. Not only are these unions separate, they're
also UNequal.

mar·riage [ mrj ]
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry:
The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife
in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Take your pick: One dictionary says X, one says Y and the third says X or Y.
ROFLMAO! Such is the folly of "dictionary proofs."

EnCarta: legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship,
established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to
live together as sexual and domestic partners

Compact Oxford: the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become
husband and wife

Marriam-Wester: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex
as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by
law, or (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a
relationship like that of a traditional marriage