-Caveat Lector- it's pro freedom, not pro-homosexual
why shouldn't gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals? and BTW - the civil union clause is about non-religious marriages, regardless of gender - so it affects heterosexual couples as well -- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- -- - - - ----- -- --- -- - - - ---- - -- - - - -- ---- -- - -- - Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. Henrik Ibsen NEURONAUTIC INSTITUTE on-line: http://home.earthlink.net/~thew > From: Bill Richer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Conspiracy Theory Research List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:54:39 EST > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [CTRL] Same-Sex Marriage on the March or on the Rocks? > > -Caveat Lector- > > http://www.newsmax.com/commentmax/articles/Reed_Irvine.shtml > > WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! > > Same-Sex Marriage on the March or on the Rocks? > Reed Irvine > Jan. 10, 2002 > > A lot of attention was paid to the efforts of homosexuals and their allies in > Vermont and Hawaii to get those two small states to legalize same-sex > marriages, giving homosexual partners all the same rights and privileges > enjoyed by married couples. > > They succeeded in Vermont but were stopped by the legislature in Hawaii. It > passed a constitutional amendment that nullified a decision by the state > Supreme Court. > > Nationally, the media have given very little attention to the drive in > California to follow in Vermont's footsteps. Two years ago California voters > approved Proposition 22, which amended the constitution supposedly to ban > legal recognition of same-sex unions. It was described as ensuring that most > state benefits available to married couples would not be extended to same-sex > couples. > > What it failed to do was state that same-sex partners were not entitled to > all the rights and privileges given to married couples. This left the door > open for a "civil unions bill." AB1338 was introduced in the state Assembly > on Feb. 23, 2001. When it was introduced, the bill was only eight pages long. > It listed 12 benefits that would be bestowed on same-sex partners. > > It has now been expanded to 46 pages. This was accomplished by going through > the California legal code and adding to every mention of "spouse" the words > "or spouse in a civil union." In other words, the entire legal code would be > amended to erase all differences between a marriage and a same-sex civil > union. > > Sixty-one percent of the California voters voted for Prop. 22, amending the > constitution. Support from Hispanic voters was even higher � about 70 > percent. Most, if not all, of them thought they were voting against same-sex > marriages. > > A lot of them will no doubt be angry if this bill is passed and Gov. Gray > Davis, a liberal Democrat, signs it. Its supporters, including those in the > media, are apparently well aware of this. They are giving it very little > publicity. It has to pass the Assembly judiciary committee by Jan. 18 and the > Assembly by the end of the month, but it appears that not many people know > about it. > > Karen Holgate, director of policy for the Capitol Resource Institute in > Sacramento, says that her greatest concern is that if the legislation passes, > it will send a message to children that "no matter what their mother or > father says, the State of California says there is no difference between > heterosexuality and homosexuality." > > She and other opponents of the bill are planning to hold demonstrations to > put pressure on swing legislators. > > A leading opponent, Randy Thomasson, Executive Director of Campaign for > California Families (CCF), has criticized Gov. Davis for mentioning God four > times in his State of the State address, but not mentioning the civil unions > controversy. > > "How does the governor get away with this kind of talk yet remain silent when > marriage is under attack?" he asked. "Davis already cheapened marriage by > signing a bill that gave over a dozen rights of marriage to homosexual > couples. He should reform his ways by saying �no' to civil unions, which is > homosexual marriage by another name." > > But in liberal Massachusetts, pro-marriage groups have succeeded against > great odds in getting enough signatures to put a Protection of Marriage > amendment to the constitution before the legislature. The pro-homosexual > attorney general had to approve its submission. He did so because he saw that > it was very popular with the voters. > > The amendment reads in part, "Only the union of one man and one woman shall > be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship > shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it > receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the > Commonwealth. ..." > > Far more signatures were gathered than the law required, and the homosexuals > did not challenge them. The next step will be to get 25 percent of the House > and Senate, meeting jointly, in two successive years, to approve putting the > proposed amendment on the ballot. That should be accomplished in 2004. > > This was done with no help from the establishment media. The Boston Globe was > very upset about the success of the signature drive. Much of the credit goes > to the monthly conservative tabloid, the Massachusetts News, and its > dedicated, indefatigable publisher, J. Edward Pawlick. > > Massachusetts has shown that traditional marriage is still so popular with > the voters that the pro-homosexual politicians can be cowed and the > pro-homosexual media can be beaten. > > > > > > > *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, > any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational > purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] > > Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! > Write to same address to be off lists! > > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > ========== > CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic > screeds are unwelcomed. Substance?not soap-boxing?please! These are > sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'?with its many half-truths, mis- > directions and outright frauds?is used politically by different groups with > major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. > That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and > always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no > credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > ======================================================================== > Archives Available at: > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html > <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of > [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> > ======================================================================== > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
