http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845

This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 12/24/13, 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:46:40 -0500, John H.
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845

This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I imagine the polygamists in Utah see this as a good thing too.

Shelby ruled,
"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has
traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today.
But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or
any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United
States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not
who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's
current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution."

There is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage as one man
and one woman or any other combination of 2 or more people.

They have systematically separated marriage from sex, cohabitation and
having children. The only issue left is financial and there is no
reason why that should be limited to 2 people.
In places with lots of older people who might choose to live together
for purely financial reasons, there is no good excuse to deny them
these protections.


Isn't it interesting that when Johnnymop spreads his hate in here, you
righties don't jump on his back. I'm glad I only see the occasional
Johnnymop hate post.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 12:10:06 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 11:57 AM, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:46:40 -0500, John H.

wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845



This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.



John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!





I imagine the polygamists in Utah see this as a good thing too.



Shelby ruled,

"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has

traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today.

But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or

any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United

States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not

who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's

current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution."



There is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage as one man

and one woman or any other combination of 2 or more people.



They have systematically separated marriage from sex, cohabitation and

having children. The only issue left is financial and there is no

reason why that should be limited to 2 people.

In places with lots of older people who might choose to live together

for purely financial reasons, there is no good excuse to deny them

these protections.





Isn't it interesting that when Johnnymop spreads his hate in here, you

righties don't jump on his back. I'm glad I only see the occasional

Johnnymop hate post.

No different than yours, ASSHOLE.

On 12/24/13, 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:10:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:46:40 -0500, John H.
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845

This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I imagine the polygamists in Utah see this as a good thing too.

Shelby ruled,
"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has
traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today.
But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or
any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United
States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not
who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's
current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution."

There is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage as one man
and one woman or any other combination of 2 or more people.

They have systematically separated marriage from sex, cohabitation and
having children. The only issue left is financial and there is no
reason why that should be limited to 2 people.
In places with lots of older people who might choose to live together
for purely financial reasons, there is no good excuse to deny them
these protections.


Isn't it interesting that when Johnnymop spreads his hate in here, you
righties don't jump on his back. I'm glad I only see the occasional
Johnnymop hate post.

I didn't see any hate. It was a link to a Washington post article.


Oh, right, because of course you didn't take note of Johnnymop's
sarcasm. Right, I get it.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:32:48 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:10:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:46:40 -0500, John H.
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845

This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I imagine the polygamists in Utah see this as a good thing too.

Shelby ruled,
"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has
traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today.
But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or
any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United
States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not
who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's
current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution."

There is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage as one man
and one woman or any other combination of 2 or more people.

They have systematically separated marriage from sex, cohabitation and
having children. The only issue left is financial and there is no
reason why that should be limited to 2 people.
In places with lots of older people who might choose to live together
for purely financial reasons, there is no good excuse to deny them
these protections.


Isn't it interesting that when Johnnymop spreads his hate in here, you
righties don't jump on his back. I'm glad I only see the occasional
Johnnymop hate post.

I didn't see any hate. It was a link to a Washington post article.


Oh, right, because of course you didn't take note of Johnnymop's
sarcasm. Right, I get it.

For some *real* sarcasm, FOAD, you need to read my response to Don's 'hate posts'. Of course, I'm
just following Don's 'lead'. When he makes a non-caustic or non-namecalling post, he deserves a
response in kind. (That doesn't happen very often!)

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 12/24/2013 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:10:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:46:40 -0500, John H.
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845

This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I imagine the polygamists in Utah see this as a good thing too.

Shelby ruled,
"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has
traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today.
But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or
any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United
States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not
who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's
current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution."

There is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage as one man
and one woman or any other combination of 2 or more people.

They have systematically separated marriage from sex, cohabitation and
having children. The only issue left is financial and there is no
reason why that should be limited to 2 people.
In places with lots of older people who might choose to live together
for purely financial reasons, there is no good excuse to deny them
these protections.


Isn't it interesting that when Johnnymop spreads his hate in here, you
righties don't jump on his back. I'm glad I only see the occasional
Johnnymop hate post.

I didn't see any hate. It was a link to a Washington post article.


The hate is in the title of the thread and his continuous mocking of
what I suppose he feels is a class of folks worth mocking...

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 16:19:08 -0500, KC wrote:

On 12/24/2013 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:10:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:46:40 -0500, John H.
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845

This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I imagine the polygamists in Utah see this as a good thing too.

Shelby ruled,
"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has
traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today.
But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or
any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United
States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not
who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's
current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution."

There is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage as one man
and one woman or any other combination of 2 or more people.

They have systematically separated marriage from sex, cohabitation and
having children. The only issue left is financial and there is no
reason why that should be limited to 2 people.
In places with lots of older people who might choose to live together
for purely financial reasons, there is no good excuse to deny them
these protections.


Isn't it interesting that when Johnnymop spreads his hate in here, you
righties don't jump on his back. I'm glad I only see the occasional
Johnnymop hate post.

I didn't see any hate. It was a link to a Washington post article.


The hate is in the title of the thread and his continuous mocking of
what I suppose he feels is a class of folks worth mocking...

Read last post.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 22:05:46 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 16:19:08 -0500, KC wrote:

The hate is in the title of the thread and his continuous mocking of
what I suppose he feels is a class of folks worth mocking...

I think it is just a reaction to the victim creep. This started as gay
rights, then hey added "lesbian" which seemed redundant. That expanded
to "bisexual" which opened up bigamy to the mix and then it went out
to transgender/transexual/transvestite, I am not sure which is which
but I am sure Harry will enlighten us.

Adding new protected classes seems to be a natural progression.
I really don't care, none of my business.

The Utah ruling is so ambiguous that I doubt any state could restrict
marriage any way if it survives SCOTUS muster.

Well explained. I am sure it's simply a matter of time before the zoophiles and pedophiles want
their 'letters' added to the GLBT acronym. It would seem they have as much right as the rest. Also,
it would seem that those fighting for the 'rights' of individuals born with various sexual
proclivities should want the same rights for the 'Z's' and 'P's'.

But, that's just me.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H