On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:51:24 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/economic-solution

Now this is the kind of creativity we need to solve our economic problems.

Gay marriage - just what we need to solve all our problems.

Even Obama is against gay marriage. :)

--

"Far better it is to dare mighty things,
to win glorious triumphs even though
checkered by failure, than to rank with
those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor
suffer much because they live in the gray
twilight that knows neither victory nor
defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

On Dec 6, 2:20*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:51:24 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."

wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/economic-solution

Now this is the kind of creativity we need to solve our economic problems.

Gay marriage - just what we need to solve all our problems.

Even Obama is against gay marriage. *:)


Well, and speaking of..

A friend of mine wrote then Senator Obama

Here's the email reply from the Senator himself

.........


Friends,

I emailed Barack Obama to request he vote in favor of the new
Federal Marriage Amendment that would make marriage an institution
solely between one man and one woman. Below is hisresponse to me. Just
thought you might want to read this. I am not surprised but I am
disappointed that my Senator takes this position.

Andy



Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
From:
To:
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:36:15 -0400

Dear Andrew:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gay marriage. I appreciate
hearing from you.

In 2006, and again this year, amid important deliberations on
health care and the war in Iraq, several of my colleagues proposed a
'Federal Marriage Amendment,' which would have amended the U.S.
Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman
and remove the rights that states have held for over two hundred years
to define and defend marriage. I voted against the motion to proceed
to the amendment because I believe the 'Federal Marriage Amendment'
was an unwarranted and divisive attempt to write discriminatory
language into the U.S. Constitution. The motion failed, and the
amendment was effectively killed. I have enclosed a copy of my floor
statement on this issue for your review.

A fundamental principle of American life is equal rights under the
law, and all people – gay or straight – deserve the right to assist
their loved ones in times of emergency, equal health insurance and
other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married
couples, and the same property rights as anyone else. I do not support
gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I
consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. But I do support
civil unions and believe they should include the same legal rights as
a marriage license. Additionally, I support allowing each individual
state to define marriage on its own.

Thank you again for writing. Please do not hesitate to contact me
in the future.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 2:20 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:51:24 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."

wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/economic-solution

Now this is the kind of creativity we need to solve our economic
problems.

Gay marriage - just what we need to solve all our problems.

Even Obama is against gay marriage. :)


Well, and speaking of..

A friend of mine wrote then Senator Obama

Here's the email reply from the Senator himself

.........


Friends,

I emailed Barack Obama to request he vote in favor of the new
Federal Marriage Amendment that would make marriage an institution
solely between one man and one woman. Below is hisresponse to me. Just
thought you might want to read this. I am not surprised but I am
disappointed that my Senator takes this position.

Andy



Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
From:
To:
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:36:15 -0400

Dear Andrew:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gay marriage. I appreciate
hearing from you.

In 2006, and again this year, amid important deliberations on
health care and the war in Iraq, several of my colleagues proposed a
'Federal Marriage Amendment,' which would have amended the U.S.
Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman
and remove the rights that states have held for over two hundred years
to define and defend marriage. I voted against the motion to proceed
to the amendment because I believe the 'Federal Marriage Amendment'
was an unwarranted and divisive attempt to write discriminatory
language into the U.S. Constitution. The motion failed, and the
amendment was effectively killed. I have enclosed a copy of my floor
statement on this issue for your review.

A fundamental principle of American life is equal rights under the
law, and all people – gay or straight – deserve the right to assist
their loved ones in times of emergency, equal health insurance and
other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married
couples, and the same property rights as anyone else. I do not support
gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I
consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. But I do support
civil unions and believe they should include the same legal rights as
a marriage license. Additionally, I support allowing each individual
state to define marriage on its own.

Thank you again for writing. Please do not hesitate to contact me
in the future.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator



------------------------------

And in this I agree 100% with POTUS elect Obama.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:33:56 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


And in this I agree 100% with POTUS elect Obama.

It is quite amazing how much difference a word makes. I can't quote the
numbers, but by a considerable majority, Americans are in favor of gay
civil unions, but use the words gay marriage, and it's a no-go.

wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:33:56 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:



And in this I agree 100% with POTUS elect Obama.


It is quite amazing how much difference a word makes. I can't quote the
numbers, but by a considerable majority, Americans are in favor of gay
civil unions, but use the words gay marriage, and it's a no-go.
The state (any state - I'm in the UK) should totally get out of the
marrage business. Marry whoever you like (that your religion will let
you) in a religious ceremony and go to the courthouse to register the
partnership (requirements: two partners, both human, alive, over the age
of consent and not currently partners of anyone else).

Letting any priest, minister or other religous leader conduct state
business is *WRONG*. I suppose one might allow churches, temples etc.
to contract with the state for a state employee to be present to
register the civil partnership contract.

"Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the
things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:21 part)

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:46:51 +0000, IanM wrote:


The state (any state - I'm in the UK) should totally get out of the
marrage business. Marry whoever you like (that your religion will let
you) in a religious ceremony and go to the courthouse to register the
partnership (requirements: two partners, both human, alive, over the age
of consent and not currently partners of anyone else).

And if you aren't religious?

Letting any priest, minister or other religous leader conduct state
business is *WRONG*. I suppose one might allow churches, temples etc.
to contract with the state for a state employee to be present to
register the civil partnership contract.

Perhaps, if we had started that way, but we now have several hundred
years of marriage between the state and religion.

wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:46:51 +0000, IanM wrote:


The state (any state - I'm in the UK) should totally get out of the
marrage business. Marry whoever you like (that your religion will let
you) in a religious ceremony and go to the courthouse to register the
partnership (requirements: two partners, both human, alive, over the age
of consent and not currently partners of anyone else).

And if you aren't religious?

Letting any priest, minister or other religous leader conduct state
business is *WRONG*. I suppose one might allow churches, temples etc.
to contract with the state for a state employee to be present to
register the civil partnership contract.

Perhaps, if we had started that way, but we now have several hundred
years of marriage between the state and religion.


I'd support the "state" getting itself out of the business of determine
who can marry, so long as the "requirements" were as IanM offered.

Those who aren't "religious" can be married by a private contractor
licensed by the state or municipality, such as a justice of the peace
(JP). Those who are religious but who don't fit into the categories
"approved" by the "religious" can also avail themselves of the JP.


My wife and I could have had a religious ceremony but we chose a JP. It
cost $20. After the wedding, we changed back into our "civvies" and went
to a nearby shopping mall for lunch and to buy the remainder of the
stuff we needed for a two week honeymoon to Mexico and Central America
that we opted for instead of blowing the cash on a big time wedding and
party for family and friends.

I don't think much in the way of hypocrisy exceeds that practiced by
many of the overtly religious. If, for example, you read the Sermon on
the Mount and then consider the behavior of the "relgious" far right,
you can only laugh.