Look, we know you pull-quote and edit what you want out of selected Holy Scripture, but do you have to do it to other posts to try to 'win'?
You cut out: "...it was separate but superior for some, inferior for others", because "civil" unions are not equal. You said so in your brag-post about how you deal with them in your State. AND, you even added that those who ARE legally married in another State better not come to yous ( a thinly veiled threat). So you are admitting "C"Us aren't equal - because they do not give us all we seek - which is nothing else than equality.
We seem to have a problem with people reading things into posts that are not there.
All I mean is my state has a VERY RESTRICTIVE doma. There is no "threat".
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
NO DO NOT SETTLE! It is "marriage" for all or "marriage" for none. not civil union for some called who the hell knows what? That is SEPARATE BUT EQUAL mentality,
What's the difference? It gives you ALL you seek, no?
Look, we know you pull-quote and edit what you want out of selected Holy Scripture, but do you have to do it to other posts to try to 'win'?
You cut out: "...it was separate but superior for some, inferior for others", because "civil" unions are not equal. You said so in your brag-post about how you deal with them in your State. AND, you even added that those who ARE legally married in another State better not come to yous ( a thinly veiled threat). So you are admitting "C"Us aren't equal - because they do not give us all we seek - which is nothing else than equality.
I know hetero couples shacking that shack for years that call themselves "married". And use the term "husband" and "wife".
So why not go with the civil union, and call yourselves what you want? Say you're married to acquaintances.... I wouldn't care about that.
Just because some of your hetero friends are liars, and just because you're okay with their lies, now you'd be okay if gay people lied too. That's SOME wierd version of morality - urging your brothers and sisters in Christ to bear false witness. No thanks.
These are the same questions any jurist should ask, they often come up with hypotheticals like this. We need to carry this out and see exactly what is wanted by the appellant.
It's already been explained what we want. You just keep on ignoring the fact that we are discussing two persons uniting in marriage. Any jurist who would ask such an ignorant question wouldn't have passed the bar in the first place.
(Oh wait. Would that be YOU as the 'jurist'???)
;{O)
I don't know, they ask some pretty "interesting" questions at the supreme court.
Is it "exclusionary" to means test for food stamps?
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
These are the same questions any jurist should ask, they often come up with hypotheticals like this. We need to carry this out and see exactly what is wanted by the appellant.
It's already been explained what we want. You just keep on ignoring the fact that we are discussing two persons uniting in marriage. Any jurist who would ask such an ignorant question wouldn't have passed the bar in the first place.
Bi-sexuals are a puzzle to me. Suppose a Lesbian unites with a Bi Female.... Must that Lesbian accept that will need to be with a man?
What an absurd (and highly insulting) question. The fact that some people are attracted to other people of either gender in no way means that that person "from time to time ... will need to be with a man". Or do you "need to be with other women from time to time" because you are attracted to women? Utter nonsensical poppycock. (As usual.)
If a bi person wants to marry both a man and a woman
This discussion has never BEEN about multiple spouses. If you aren't going to bother even address what is actually being discussed, do NOT expect to be taken seriously.
Like I keep saying, it's comments like that that lead us to believe you are delusional.
The 9th Circut is one level down from a circus, having been reversed more times than upheld.
On to the Supremes.
I happened to notice as I read the thread
but this IS California, correct?
What else would you expect from a voter-led proposition? The California Constitution has been amended about 500 times by referendum and about 40 times by initiatives since its adoption in 1879.
Such validity. Not.
Bring on the Supremes. Oh heck, and Martha and the Vandellas, too for all I care. Whoever can ultimately dole out liberty and justice for ALL again would be just fine. Whoever can restore the INALIENABLE right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness back to ALL citizens.
