On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
Is there anyone against gay marriage
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William T Goodall wrote:
On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics
On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William T Goodall wrote:
On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has
Julia Thompson wrote:
Horn, John wrote:
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice...
Dogs and cats living together...
Mass hysteria.
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria
JDG said:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
Even the children? I'm not sure I'd agree with such laws.
Rich
GCU Raising The Pedantry Stakes
___
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Julia Thompson
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:10 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro
So...are we to be greeted by the grand sight of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man?
-- Matt
- Original Message
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:32:32 AM
Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet
On Behalf
At 04:58 PM Friday 11/10/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet
Dogs and cats living together...
In and out
Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice
At 09:38 AM Saturday 11/11/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Mass hysteria.
Julia
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru
Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on the scale?
-- Ronn! :)
___
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:38 AM Saturday 11/11/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Mass hysteria.
Julia
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru
Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on the
scale?
Possibly.
I figured out awhile back that the number on the scale
Ronn! wrote:
Julia wrote:
Mass hysteria.
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru
Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on
the scale?
I thought she meant a particularly moving Catholic service.
Doug
___
In a message dated 11/10/2006 5:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived
together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they
just seem to enjoy barking and hissing at each other.
Sounds like my
At 04:00 PM Saturday 11/11/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/10/2006 5:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived
together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they
just seem to enjoy
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 10/11/2006, at 4:58 PM, pencimen wrote:
JDG wrote:
Despite your cavalier attitude - shrug
Charlie Bell wrote:
Neither will gay marriage. The actual numbers of marriages will be,
obviously, small compared to straight marriages, but the security
and protection that life partners and children of gay people who
choose to marry receive is vital to those people.
Until
JDG wrote:
What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ?
partner's
relationship is recognised too.
You were just advocating marriages between three or more people
What's wrong with that? Historically, marriage _was_ between
three or more people. OTOH, the problems
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice...
Dogs
At 10:32 AM Friday 11/10/2006, Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising
On 11/11/2006, at 3:32 AM, Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from
- Original Message -
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet
Dogs and cats living together...
In and out of civil unions..
xponent
Also Had To Be Said Maru
rob
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided
people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted,
fostered or biological), what
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever the
pair is infertile, and
: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever
Damon wrote:
Alberto, have you been reading Haldeman's _Forever War_?
No, but after I sent the message I remembered a _South Park_
episode where South Park was invaded by immigrants from the
Future, and they decide that, to prevent superpopulation,
they would all become gay.
Alberto
At 06:47 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided
people make provision for the children of
At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
to the St*te to outlaw
couples, but prior to
modern times, the number of such marriages was small (one rarely if
ever
knew if a couple would be infertile beforehand, and there were much
fewer elderly remarriages), and in any case, such marriages didn't
alter
the basic societal structure.
Neither will gay marriage
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
Provided
people make provision for the
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
Provided
people make provision
see that actively seeking bans on gay marriage does
anything other than foster more bigotry and cause pain for gay
couples and their children.
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 10/11/2006, at 3:23 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter,
with children as the little white laboratory mice.
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay
marriage?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
a social experiment on a
grandscale with children as the little white laboratory mice.
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay
marriage?
No no! It's all about polygamy! Apparently.
:-S
Charlie
___
http
On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I
don't know what provisions those are that you are talking about,
To answer this bit - provision for the children means inheritance
and child support in case of one partner leaving the relationship
through divorce or death. And support for
as a partnership
between three people.
You're also being obtuse. I have attempted
to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in
the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair
enough, you don't want that wider discussion.
First, in fairness, I find you
or biological), what business is it of anyone else.
You're also being obtuse. I have attempted
to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in
the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair
enough, you don't want that wider discussion.
First, in fairness, I find
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in
countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay
marriage. Round and round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
Except that the previous thread
JDG wrote:
This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven
by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that
JDG wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea
So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit? Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
orientation?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that
sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas.
Yes, I misread the post, sorry. Of course I couldn't disagree more.
What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court
that
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:44 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates
On 07/11/2006, at 2:49 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea
So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit?
No.
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates
that
sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad
ideas.
Yes, I misread the post, sorry.
First, thank you to Dan for explaining my
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be
driven
by whether
JDG wrote:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word free is
somewhat misplaced.
In any case, it's heartening to see that, despite the best effort of
not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're
being treated differently. You're also being obtuse. I have attempted
to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in
the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair
enough, you don't want
heartening to see that, despite the best effort of
Bush, Rove and their evangelical friends, attitudes are changing.
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
Seeing friends with legal marriage
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more
likely to ask why we discourage loving relationships
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more
likely
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-marriage
nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' Haggard has
been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing
closeted gay?
--
William T
At 02:40 PM Sunday 11/5/2006, William T Goodall asked:
Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing
closeted gay?
Yes.
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 06/11/2006, at 7:40 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
Is there anyone against gay marriage
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brin-L brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Gay marriage in the closet
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical
anti-gay-marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted
On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a
you expect
people to think with reason and drop Evil Traditions? How many
planes have to crash or refineries blow up before... wait... we are
arguing about Gay marriage, right?
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 06/11/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
I
Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brin-L brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Gay marriage in the closet
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical
anti-gay-marriage nutcases being
the Earth's GNP still use feet and pounds, how can you expect
people to think with reason and drop Evil Traditions? How many
planes have to crash or refineries blow up before... wait... we are
arguing about Gay marriage, right?
Alberto Monteiro
Hm. You may have something there.
Where have the last few
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED
Folks,
From Craigslist:
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural
things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way tha
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay
On Jan 3, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
of
course, fungal infection of the brain is just a tad
more serious than that of the toenail, and you can't
do without a brain, unlike pretty feet...
You might want to forward this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor,
I wrote:
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
snippage throughout
Toenail fungus.
You lost me at Toenail fungus. Are we being
given
a test, which one of
these does not belong? :-) My best guess is that
referring to the
FDA's warning in 2001 about
At Monday 04:38 PM 1/3/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Lamisil is much less
toxic than frex Amphotericin B, which we nicknamed
'amphoterrible' b/c of its many nasty side effects (of
course, fungal infection of the brain is just a tad
more serious than that of the toenail, and you can't
do without a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:00:43 -0500, Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be a cosmetic problem, but its also a real pain. I sometimes have
problems with my *toes* hurting because the nails are too thick, and
filing
them down is tedious and time consuming (that said, I did get a
Reggie wrote:
The vet that we take our guinea pigs and pygmie hedgehog to see uses a
Dremel to do their nails. Also, the long front teath of guinea pigs
continue to grow their entire life, and when they are not in the wild
they
often grow long enough to become a problem. Our vet uses her Dremel
On Dec 29, 2004, at 7:00 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
that said, I did get a Dremel mototool for Xmas
The image that spawns -- you carving away at your toes with a small
rotary power tool, toenail dust flying all over -- is a cross between
hilarious and disgusting.
Thanks! :D
--
Warren Ockrassa,
- Original Message -
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Education - or lack thereof (was: Gay Marriage)
On Dec 29, 2004, at 7:00 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
that said, I did get
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:00:43 -0500, Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be a cosmetic problem, but its also a real pain. I sometimes have
problems with my *toes* hurting because the nails are too thick, and filing
them down is tedious and time consuming (that said, I did get a Dremel
Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snippage
Mind you that's at the local charter school. The
public schools are
being abandoned in droves by students who whine that
the curriculum is
too hard and whose parents are tired of having
their kids flunk.
When students become
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 01:50:14PM -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Or to emulate your choice of wording:
When patients become customers, medicine is doomed.
Vioxx.
Toenail fungus.
Major medical centers that offer unproven therapies as
viable alternatives.
Wishful thinking does not equal
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Or to emulate your choice of wording:
When patients become customers, medicine is
doomed.
Vioxx.
Toenail fungus.
Major medical centers that offer unproven
therapies as
viable alternatives.
sniplet
You lost me at
My point is more that it's a cosmetic problem if you
like to show off your feet (could be more serious for
the severely immunosuppressed, of course), yet the
advertising implies that because it's an infection (I
prefer to call it an infestation since it's
superficial, and perhaps b/c I've had a
Gay Marriage! Haven't we done enough to those people already! Asked a New
Yorker cartoon.
The gay marriage issue is, to me, somewhat akin to trying to argue about
race. Race does not exist, sexuality is fluid, and, as far as I can tell,
preordained.
I would prefer government helps
On Nov 5, 2004, at 4:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gay Marriage! Haven't we done enough to those people already! Asked
a New
Yorker cartoon.
Actually the amendments that passed generally block *all* kinds of
marriage by proclaiming it's one man:one woman only. Plural marriage is
out
Damon Agretto wrote:
Personally, I think the government should drop the
term marriage from their side of things, and call
ALL such unions Civil Unions and treat them the same.
I think g*vernments should remove marriage from the law
and include something like a Civil Society, which would
allow
of goods and who takes care of the children.
You bet. That's the most ideal way to go.
Extending marriages to gays only would exclude other
groups.
I don't know that anyone is specifically requesting a pro-gay marriage
law; however the laws that were enacted in 11 states say something to
this effect
Highly influential House Speaker Tom Finneran of the MA state
legislature, (a gay marriage opponent who co-sponsored the
anti-gay-marriage amendment) is stepping down, and his replacement is
a gay marriage supporter.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/09/28
Bryon Daly wrote:
Highly influential House Speaker Tom Finneran of the MA state
legislature, (a gay marriage opponent who co-sponsored the
anti-gay-marriage amendment) is stepping down, and his replacement is
a gay marriage supporter.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/09/28
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:49:50 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryon Daly wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/09/28/prospects_shift_as_dimasi_takes_over_for_finneran/
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/5f7qn
Interesting. Thank you for sharing this.
You're welcome!
Bryon Daly wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:49:50 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have one quick question -- how many seats are there in the
Massachusetts House?
159 by my (actually Excel's) count: http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenuh.htm
Thanks. They were talking in the
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, NYT complete story
Officials of several religious organizations, including the
Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopal churches, sent an open letter to
Congress yesterday opposing the proposed constitutional amendment
banning same-sex marriage.
Although we have differing
On 4 Jun 2004, at 9:39 am, Gary Denton wrote:
Gary D - Why is the state in the religion business of defining
marriage?
Because it has been hijacked by religious bigots?
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Our
--
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary D - Why is the state in the religion business of defining marriage?
You haven't been paying attention. The Entire congressional leadership
of the reptiliKlans are christian reconstructionists (aka dominionists).
---
Religious bondage
William T Goodall wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004, at 9:39 am, Gary Denton wrote:
Gary D - Why is the state in the religion business of defining marriage?
Because it has been hijacked by religious bigots?
Marriage did not originate in the church, the church hijacked marriage
from the state a long time ago.
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 5:48 PM
Subject: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
At 04:15 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
I could also point out that desegregation of schools didn't
really
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their
constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those
tyrants on the
MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says.
There's been over 30 years to reverse the tyrants
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their
constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those
tyrants on the
MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Minette wrote:
The reality of the '60s and '70s and even into the '90s is desegregation
was pushed by court order. What happened was, after roughly 10 years,
courts decided that all due speed was not being used and started
getting involved in the nitty gritty of
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Minette wrote:
Actually, my understanding (and this was from a special
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Minette wrote:
Actually, my understanding
--
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their
constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on
the
MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says.
Ah, yes tyranny. The Catholic church has
At 01:57 AM 5/23/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
So you wouldn't care about losing all the legal rights and responsibilities
that
come with marriage, if they were denied to you?
I would be mildly annoyed, for sure.But I would find ways to make due.
My central point, however, is that this
At 03:56 AM 5/18/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
Rights are not decided by majority vote. That is the purpose of the
American system, particularly the judiciary. If rights were decided
by majority vote than minorities would always be in fear of
majorities.
Actually. in the United States
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Gay marriage update
At 03:56 AM 5/18/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
Rights are not decided by majority vote. That is the purpose
At 02:50 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
Well, we've yet to have a constitutional amendment telling those tyrants on
the US supreme court exactly what the 15th amendment meant...and its been
exactly 50 years.
Has anybody else noticed Dan M.'s obsession with race? I know a lot of
people
1 - 100 of 332 matches
Mail list logo
