------------------------------------------------------------------------ * G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May There is no better, value for money, guest house. Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > > Hi Selma, > > Wendell has been a beacon of hope for so many in a > land steeped in > hypocrisy and prejudice. He made international news > a few years ago and > continues to 'walk the walk' for gay rights and the > environment in Goa. > http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/02/gay-marriage-debate-goes-global-slowly > .htm > > However, I'm not so sure about our new Bush-clone PM > Steven Harper's plans > to re-open the same-sex marriage issue that has been > settled by the highest > court in the land. > http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=517 > Mario responds: > As with private religious beliefs I have no problems with what consenting adults of any gender or cdombination of genders do in private as long as they eschew stuffing it in my face. > I'm so glad that Kevin and Selma are ecstatic that Wendell has been a "beacon of hope" for gays in Goa. I, too, am glad for all of them, as it must be difficult to be gay in straight-laced Goa. > However, as usual Kevin, who preaches tolerance and conciliation snidely interspersed with exactly the opposite, takes this opportumity to obfuscate the debate about gay marriage in the US and Canada. Apparently in Canada, as in Britain, any time their leader happens to have an opinion that crosses paths with the US-administration, they are referred to by their political opponents as "Bush-clones". No such reference is made when they disagree with the US administration. > I don't particularly care what the Canadians do so I will restrict my remarks to the US. > Marriage in most of the US is defined as the formal legal union of a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and several women, or several women and a man, or a grown-up and a child, or a human with an non-human, all options that would open up under anti-discrimination laws if the definition is changed for one group. One US state, Massachussetts, "recognizes same sex marriages", other states recognize "civil unions". This has already led to lawsuits by polygamists demanding the same privileges. > Those who fit the other definitions, have the ability to enter into legal contracts with any content they choose to include, generally referred to as "domestic partnership" agreements or "civil unions". Even non-gay friends who live together out of convenience can do so. They just cannot call it "marriage", because large percentages of Americans of all kinds, including flaming liberals on everything else, have legally opined through the democratic process that they do not want the traditional and legal definition of marriage changed. > It's as simple as that. > _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org