«

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
<> wrote:

>>
>> It's not going anywhere, Tony. Even Obama is against it. On this issue he's
>> throwing his leftist base under the bus.
>
>Do you have any indication whether he himself is actually against it
>or is he against it
>because being for it will lose votes or support for the government.
>I/we have the same problem in the UK that is not knowing a politicians
>personal POV
>from that or the governments POV.
>The we need to work out whether or not the individuals POV is
>important and relevant.
>
Other than the fact that the President has the bully pulpit, his or
her views have little to do with any possible change in the marriage
laws. I don't see it as a federal issue anyway.

As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
citizens.

I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not going anywhere, Tony. Even Obama is against it. On this issue
>>>> he's
>>>> throwing his leftist base under the bus.
>>>
>>>Do you have any indication whether he himself is actually against it
>>>or is he against it
>>>because being for it will lose votes or support for the government.
>>>I/we have the same problem in the UK that is not knowing a politicians
>>>personal POV
>>>from that or the governments POV.
>>>The we need to work out whether or not the individuals POV is
>>>important and relevant.
>>>
>> Other than the fact that the President has the bully pulpit, his or
>
>That reminds me of "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the
>play?"
>
>> her views have little to do with any possible change in the marriage
>> laws. I don't see it as a federal issue anyway.
>
>You might want to take a peek at the Federal income tax code.
>
The impetus to change the law is not, in my opinion, a federal issue.
I think any changes will come state-by-state. I don't see how federal
tax laws will impact future decisions on this issue. Sure, changes
would affect tax revenue, but tax laws are easier to change than your
shirt.

Speaking of tax revenue, some state is going to recognize that
increasing the number of people eligible to marry will increase state
revenue. Florida marriage licenses are now $93.50, but the
legislature has been bumping up the cost of all permits and licenses.
Florida has a non-required "Covenant" marriage agreement, but they
could always add that as a strict requirement and charge extra for the
course.

>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
>> citizens.
>
>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.

I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.

>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in every
>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know where
>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.

I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
be passed.

>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
>
>>
>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
>> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
>
>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed such
>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
>recognizing same-sex marriage.

Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
any *future* laws passed by any state.

"Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
"marriage" must mean is defended.

Obama has already declared that his administration will no longer
defend the DOMA in court. Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
on the wall.

What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
expenses of defending DOMA. We have serious budgetary problems, but
the GOP wants to divert money to defend a law that a significant
number of Americans oppose. Whether support for same-sex marriage
recognition is at 40% or 44% or whatever, the number is significant.

It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
leads to a change in job status.

While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.

>Good grief, Tony. You spend all that time researching political candidates
>and you don't know what laws they've passed once they're in office?!

I don't think this is an issue of concern. My knowledge of what's
going on is affected by neither blinders nor lack of keeping up.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>
>>
>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
>>>> citizens.
>>>
>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.
>>
>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>
>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>understatement.
>
>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
>*only* for the benefit of a single group?

Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.

>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in every
>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
>>>where
>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.
>>
>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
>> be passed.
>
>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.

It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
unable to under current law. This is discrimination rendering them
unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
suffrage amendments were.

>>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
>>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
>>>> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
>>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
>>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
>>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
>>>such
>>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
>>>recognizing same-sex marriage.
>>
>> Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
>> any *future* laws passed by any state.
>
>I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."
>
>>
>> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
>> defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
>> "marriage" must mean is defended.
>
>That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
>changed to something quite different.

Like they changed the meaning of "voter", under the law, from a white
man who votes to a man or woman who votes.

Likewise we will change the meaning of "marriage", under the law, from
a man and woman who are married to two adults who are married.

>> Obama has already declared that his administration will no longer
>> defend the DOMA in court.
>
>Not surprising, is it? Obama trying to have it both ways again. He has said
>he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but throws a soggy
>donut to his wacky liberal base by assuring them he won't actually enforce
>the law as he is supposed to do.
>
>We already know that he believes in being extremely selective in how he
>defends the law of the land. Obviously Eric Holder, his chief law
>enforcement guy, knows he has Obama behind him when he refuses to address
>the matter of New Black Panther Party thugs intimidating white voters at the
>polling station. Holder even directs his Civil Rights Division people to
>IGNORE the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's lawful subpoenas, and refuses to
>cooperate with the Civil Rights Commission as the law requires him to do.
>And gets away with it, in this administration. Protection from voter
>intimidation is only for minorities. Not for white people. That is Holder's
>position, and it's fine with Obama.

The criminal investigation was dropped while the Bush administration
had left office. All that was done after was to narrow the charges.

>> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
>> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
>> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
>> on the wall.
>
>Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.
>
>>
>> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
>> expenses of defending DOMA.
>
>Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?

So does he want to cut government expenses or just shuffle them
around?

I suspect the half-million was designed to impress repub constituents
who don't have a good idea of what the legal fees would actually be.

>>> We have serious budgetary problems, but
>>> the GOP wants to divert money to defend a law that a significant
>> number of Americans oppose. Whether support for same-sex marriage
>> recognition is at 40% or 44% or whatever, the number is significant.
>
>But still a minority. The majority agrees with Boehner, and by a comfortable
>margin.

Well, that just makes it fine and dandy to continue the
discrimination, now doesn't it?

What it comes down to is whether the law is constitutional.

>> It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
>> because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
>> something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
>> leads to a change in job status.
>>
>> While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
>> support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
>> word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
>> should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
>> to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.
>
>It really doesn't occur to you that in those two paragraphs you're arguing
>against yourself? First you claim DOMA is "unpopular," then you admit a
>majority support it. I guess this is leftist-"liberal" logic at its best.

It is increasingly unpopular. It may have a slim majority of support
now (that figure would be within the margin of error for the latest
polls) but that has been changing. Saying that how things will be will
be different from how things are is not a contradiction. Despite your
insistence to the contrary, things can and do change over time.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>
>>
>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
>>>> citizens.
>>>
>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.
>>
>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>
>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>understatement.

I think anyone reading it that followed the train of thought didn't
have much of problem.

>
>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
>*only* for the benefit of a single group?

Radical? I think not. Standard and ordinary.

Your current marriage license is recognized in any state of the Union.
Married people are a group. The default is to recognize a license.
In states where a same-sex marriage licensed in another state is not
recognized, it is by a law that was drafted specifically to exclude
same-sex marriage.

All we need is a federal law requiring all states to accept as valid
any marriage license issued in another state. Article 6 of the
Constitution would make this law trump any state law.

Your driver's license is recognized in any state in the Union.
Driver's are a group, are they not?

Some states grant reciprocity to holders of Concealed Carry to holders
of licenses in other states, but the person with a Concealed Carry
permit issued by Nevada permit is licensed by reciprocity by Arizona,
but Arizona gun laws are in effect for that person when he is in
Arizona.

Certain trade licenses are recognized by states other than the state
in which it was granted, but the tradesman is bound by the rules of
the state in which he works. In some cases, you can work as - say - a
licensed plumber in a state that is not the state where you were
licensed as a plumber, but you cannot be the contractor for a plumbing
job.

A private pilot's license issued in any state is recognized all 50
states.

You could have figured all this out yourself.

>>
>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in every
>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
>>>where
>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.
>>
>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
>> be passed.
>
>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.

Right. That's what they said about the Voting Rights Act of 1956.

>
>>
>>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
>>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
>>>> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
>>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
>>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
>>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
>>>such
>>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
>>>recognizing same-sex marriage.
>>
>> Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
>> any *future* laws passed by any state.
>
>I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."

No, it's a case of you reading to disagree and not reading to
understand.
>>
>> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
>> defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
>> "marriage" must mean is defended.
>
>That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
>changed to something quite different.

That is only your opinion. Others may share your opinion, but many do
not. You know what they say about opinions.

The proper title should be "Defense of How Some Of Us Define
Marriage".

>> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
>> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
>> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
>> on the wall.
>
>Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.

Nothing has ever stopped a party in power from finding a way to fund
what they want if they think they can get away with it.

>>
>> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
>> expenses of defending DOMA.
>
>Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?

It hasn't changed. If Boehner thinks the legal battle is a lost
cause, he wants someone else to take the blame. He wants to be able
to say "The Republicans did what the could, but the DoJ blew it".
Having the DoJ take up the battle doesn't reduce the expenditure; it
just sources the expenditure differently.


>> It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
>> because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
>> something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
>> leads to a change in job status.
>>
>> While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
>> support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
>> word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
>> should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
>> to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.
>
>It really doesn't occur to you that in those two paragraphs you're arguing
>against yourself? First you claim DOMA is "unpopular," then you admit a
>majority support it. I guess this is leftist-"liberal" logic at its best.
>
No conflict there at all. Popularity is not something that is defined
by a support of a majority or backing by a minority. "Unpopular", in
this context, means not favored by a significant number of people.

You must be on the ropes. You're beginning to sound like Bill Graham.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:53:34 -0400, John A. <>
wrote:

>
>>> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
>>> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
>>> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
>>> on the wall.
>>
>>Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.
>>
>>>
>>> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
>>> expenses of defending DOMA.
>>
>>Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?
>
>So does he want to cut government expenses or just shuffle them
>around?
>
>I suspect the half-million was designed to impress repub constituents
>who don't have a good idea of what the legal fees would actually be.

$500,000 will fund one lawyer for about six months in a case like
this. He's waving the white flag. (Maybe a pink one) Boehmer's
lawyer gets $550 a billable hour, and the direct primary attorney
expense is a small part of the total legal expenses.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Apr 27, 1:49*pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> "John A." <j...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:. ..
> >>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news: m...
>
> >>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
> >>>>> legislation. *The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
> >>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
> >>>>> citizens.
>
> >>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
> >>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.
>
> >>> I wasn't clear. *I should have added "need" in there. *There might be
> >>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
> >>> performed in other states. *It could be marriage-specific and not
> >>> include all the other things we are licensed for. *"Umbrella" in that
> >>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>
> >>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
> >>understatement.
>
> >>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
> >>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
> >>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
>
> > Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
> > recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
> > and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>
> No one is being discriminated against here.

Some have been and some still are, sometimes discrimination is the
right thing
to do other times it isn't.


> >>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
> >>>>every
> >>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
> >>>>where
> >>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise..
>
> >>> I didn't. *I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
> >>> be passed.
>
> >>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.
>
> > It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
> > unable to under current law.
>
> As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
> same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man and
> a kitty/TV set/other man.

So prove it.
Prove the first marriage or the second and prove to me what marriage
was originally.
Not what is was yesterday or that the bride has to be a virgin, or has
to wear white,
or that it has to be in church or it has to be witnessed.
No one is realyl sure when or why the first marriages took place or
who they were between or
what the purpose of maiiage was althouhg most believ it was a simple
transaction of ownership
from one family to another in exchange or the joining of land and
property.

Here's a warning for you, if you do find the very first marriage it
it's written the the original
English/America it is most likely a faked document as marriages
existed 1000s of year before
English or American was spoken.


> > This is discrimination rendering them
> > unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
> > suffrage amendments were.
>
> What you want is not *equal rights under the law, but a change in the
> meaning of the word "marriage."

We don;t know what the original meaning of marriage was.
We know what marriages are in other older cultures and how it has
changed with time.
Once marraige could only occur between peolpe of teh same race /
religion.
Marriage has changed from country to country, so how can you tell what
it was 10,000 years ago.

What was the native American views on marriage and how did that work,
did the brides have to be virgins and marry in white.
Marriages have been changed by the religious beliefs of those in power
throughout the ages.

>
> >>>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
>
> >>>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
> >>>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
> >>>>> marriage want. *The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
> >>>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. *That is more likely to be
> >>>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
> >>>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
>
> >>>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
> >>>>such
> >>>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
> >>>>recognizing same-sex marriage.
>
> >>> Read my entire paragraph. *It deals only with the constitutionalityof
> >>> any *future* laws passed by any state.
>
> >>I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."
>
> >>> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. *Marriage isn't being
> >>> defended. *Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
> >>> "marriage" must mean is defended.
>
> >>That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
> >>changed to something quite different.
>
> > Like they changed the meaning of "voter", under the law, from a white
> > man who votes to a man or woman who votes.
>
> A voter is one who has the right to vote. That is what it has always meant,
> and there has been no change in the meaning of "voter."

yes there has, I'm not sure how it worked in the USA but in the UK
not every man was allowed to vote you have to be of a certain age
bracket,
and then eant a certain salery or own your own home.
As time went on the discrimination of only allowing certain men to
vote was changed
so that any lame within the age bracket could vote.
Then women started to get the vote an then only some of them not all
as it was originally with men.
Now men and women can vote equally.
But there are those that still can;t call themselves voters, such as
those in prisons or held
at her majestys pleasure or whatever you choose to call it (banged
up).
Apparently there are moves to change these voting rights so those in
prison can vote.
So what it means to be a voter has changed .


> What it comes down to is whether you or any activist group can change the
> meaning of a word from what it has always meant to something quite
> different.

But you don't know what marriage was 10,000+ years ago.

All you can do is guess.

I suppose you know why the married couple kiss don;t you,
I suppose you know why the bride wears a veil and why she carried
flowers...
But all these things have been taken from various ceremonies of the
last few thousand years.

But then I'm guessing you don't even know why people get married to
you.

I'm guessing it because you believe you can only ever love one person
and until you marry them you can't prove you love them is that it ?

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"John A." <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>>>news: om...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>
>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>
>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>understatement.
>>>
>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>
>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>
>No one is being discriminated against here.

Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a
church believes that two men or two women should be able to marry,
what right does anyone else have to say they can't? They're consenting
adults. If someone outside their church doesn't like it, too bad.

>>>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
>>>>>every
>>>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
>>>>>where
>>>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
>>>> be passed.
>>>
>>>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.
>>
>> It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
>> unable to under current law.
>
>As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
>same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man and
>a kitty/TV set/other man.

The old slippery slope straw man.

Again, we're talking about consenting adult *humans* here.

When and if sentient non-humans come around we'll talk about going
beyond that, but not before. Meanwhile minors & sub-sentients can't
give consent.

>> This is discrimination rendering them
>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
>> suffrage amendments were.
>
>What you want is not equal rights under the law, but a change in the
>meaning of the word "marriage."

In order to establish more equal rights under the law. It wouldn't be
the first word redefined to that purpose.

In fact, I'd say it wouldn't be a redefinition of the word at all, but
rather a mere expansion of its application.

>>>>>The federal government itself does not recognize same-sex marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see a constitutional amendment on this issue in the future.
>>>>>> It's not needed to effect the changes that proponents of same-sex
>>>>>> marriage want. The only way the Constitution figures in is that any
>>>>>> laws passed must be constitutionally sound. That is more likely to be
>>>>>> an issue in the negative if some state passes a law that is considered
>>>>>> to be a denial of a right granted in the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>Try explaining that to the federal government, which already has passed
>>>>>such
>>>>>a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which PROHIBITS the government from
>>>>>recognizing same-sex marriage.
>>>>
>>>> Read my entire paragraph. It deals only with the constitutionality of
>>>> any *future* laws passed by any state.
>>>
>>>I guess that's another case of your not being "clear."
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Defense of Marriage Act" is a joke of a title. Marriage isn't being
>>>> defended. Only the mossback's protective concepts of what the word
>>>> "marriage" must mean is defended.
>>>
>>>That *is* the defense of marriage -- protecting its meaning from being
>>>changed to something quite different.
>>
>> Like they changed the meaning of "voter", under the law, from a white
>> man who votes to a man or woman who votes.
>
>A voter is one who has the right to vote. That is what it has always meant,
>and there has been no change in the meaning of "voter."

And marriage is when two people marry. Maybe a lot of people only
think of male-female pairs when they think of marriage, but the word
goes beyond that, even to pairings of other objects. Again, this is
just an expansion of application, not a change of meaning.

>> Likewise we will change the meaning of "marriage", under the law, from
>> a man and woman who are married to two adults who are married.
>>
>>>> Obama has already declared that his administration will no longer
>>>> defend the DOMA in court.
>>>
>>>Not surprising, is it? Obama trying to have it both ways again. He has
>>>said
>>>he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but throws a soggy
>>>donut to his wacky liberal base by assuring them he won't actually enforce
>>>the law as he is supposed to do.
>>>
>>>We already know that he believes in being extremely selective in how he
>>>defends the law of the land. Obviously Eric Holder, his chief law
>>>enforcement guy, knows he has Obama behind him when he refuses to address
>>>the matter of New Black Panther Party thugs intimidating white voters at
>>>the
>>>polling station. Holder even directs his Civil Rights Division people to
>>>IGNORE the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's lawful subpoenas, and refuses to
>>>cooperate with the Civil Rights Commission as the law requires him to do.
>>>And gets away with it, in this administration. Protection from voter
>>>intimidation is only for minorities. Not for white people. That is
>>>Holder's
>>>position, and it's fine with Obama.
>>
>> The criminal investigation was dropped while the Bush administration
>> had left office. All that was done after was to narrow the charges.
>>
>>>> Boehner has only allocated $500,000 to
>>>> legal fees to defend DOMA. That's a pittance as a budget for legal
>>>> defense of a federal law. It seems even Boehner can read the writing
>>>> on the wall.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Boehner wants government expenses cut wherever they can be cut.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What frosts me, though, is that Boehner wants the DoJ to pick up the
>>>> expenses of defending DOMA.
>>>
>>>Now what happened to your "reading the writing on the wall" idea?
>>
>> So does he want to cut government expenses or just shuffle them
>> around?
>>
>> I suspect the half-million was designed to impress repub constituents
>> who don't have a good idea of what the legal fees would actually be.
>>
>>>>> We have serious budgetary problems, but
>>>>> the GOP wants to divert money to defend a law that a significant
>>>> number of Americans oppose. Whether support for same-sex marriage
>>>> recognition is at 40% or 44% or whatever, the number is significant.
>>>
>>>But still a minority. The majority agrees with Boehner, and by a
>>>comfortable
>>>margin.
>>
>> Well, that just makes it fine and dandy to continue the
>> discrimination, now doesn't it?
>
>There is no discrimination. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same
>rights under the law.

No, they don't. Two homosexuals who want to marry can't do so in many
states, and when they can in some states it's not recognized in
others.

It's similar to what the situation was with interracial marriages, not
so long ago.

>> What it comes down to is whether the law is constitutional.
>
>What it comes down to is whether you or any activist group can change the
>meaning of a word from what it has always meant to something quite
>different.
>
>This has been explained to you many times now.

Again, there is no change in meaning, only an expansion of
application.

>>>> It's my opinion that support for DOMA in congress will ebb away
>>>> because even Republicans in solid districts recognize that defending
>>>> something unpopular that doesn't bring a direct benefit to anyone
>>>> leads to a change in job status.
>>>>
>>>> While many Americans - hell, I'll even give you "a majority of" -
>>>> support DOMA, there is no tangible benefit to DOMA. Reassurance that
>>>> word's meaning won't change is not a tangible benefit. Congress
>>>> should direct their efforts to programs that bring tangible benefits
>>>> to the citizenry, and those who want re-elected will.
>>>
>>>It really doesn't occur to you that in those two paragraphs you're arguing
>>>against yourself? First you claim DOMA is "unpopular," then you admit a
>>>majority support it. I guess this is leftist-"liberal" logic at its best.
>>
>> It is increasingly unpopular. It may have a slim majority of support
>> now (that figure would be within the margin of error for the latest
>> polls) but that has been changing. Saying that how things will be will
>> be different from how things are is not a contradiction. Despite your
>> insistence to the contrary, things can and do change over time.
>
>Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages were
>cantaloupes.

The numbers don't lie.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"John A." <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>>>news: om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:d170r6lhqivmq749ijdv7e8bs5glkp1phu@4ax .com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
>>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding
>>>>>>>mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>>>
>>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>>understatement.
>>>>>
>>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
>>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
>>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>
>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>
>>>No one is being discriminated against here.
>>
>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a
>
>It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything else.
>There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious connection
>whatever.

And those laws violate freedom of religion.

>> church believes that two men or two women should be able to marry,
>> what right does anyone else have to say they can't? They're consenting
>> adults. If someone outside their church doesn't like it, too bad.
>
>They still can't sell cabbages as cantaloupes.

No, but they can perform marriages. Do try to stay on topic.

>>>>>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
>>>>>>>every
>>>>>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't know
>>>>>>>where
>>>>>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what might
>>>>>> be passed.
>>>>>
>>>>>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.
>>>>
>>>> It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
>>>> unable to under current law.
>>>
>>>As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
>>>same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man
>>>and
>>>a kitty/TV set/other man.
>>
>> The old slippery slope straw man.
>>
>> Again, we're talking about consenting adult *humans* here.
>
>But why? If you can change the meaning of a word to include same sex where
>it didn't mean that before, then you're throwing out the old familiar
>meaning and you can have the word mean whatever you want -- including man
>and his favorite electronic device, I suppose.

You can keep setting up that same old straw man if you wish, but
you're only making yourself look ridiculous.

>> When and if sentient non-humans come around we'll talk about going
>> beyond that, but not before. Meanwhile minors & sub-sentients can't
>> give consent.
>
>Why not, if you're throwing out the old meaning?

Expanding it. A man and woman who get married are still married. It's
just that more people will be able to be married.

>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
>>>> suffrage amendments were.
>>>
>>>What you want is not equal rights under the law, but a change in the
>>>meaning of the word "marriage."
>>
>> In order to establish more equal rights under the law. It wouldn't be
>> the first word redefined to that purpose.
>>
>> In fact, I'd say it wouldn't be a redefinition of the word at all, but
>> rather a mere expansion of its application.
>
>That's like "expanding" the meaning of "submarine" to include "automobiles."

Not at all. When submarines were invented the meaning of "ocean-going
vessel" was expanded to include them. It happens. Deal with it.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"John A." <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
>>>>>news: om...
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:um71r69fgc4psk4tsqmmiqrf9c8tjtl536@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:d170r6lhqivmq749ijdv7e8bs5glkp1phu@4 ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
>>>>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding
>>>>>>>>>mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
>>>>>>>> marriages
>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
>>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>>>>understatement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
>>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>No one is being discriminated against here.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a
>>>
>>>It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything else.
>>>There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious connection
>>>whatever.
>>
>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
>
>How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom of
>religion"?

If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
that freedom.

A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
general, to infringe on religious freedoms.

>>>> church believes that two men or two women should be able to marry,
>>>> what right does anyone else have to say they can't? They're consenting
>>>> adults. If someone outside their church doesn't like it, too bad.
>>>
>>>They still can't sell cabbages as cantaloupes.
>>
>> No, but they can perform marriages. Do try to stay on topic.
>
>It is on topic. If you can call something that isn't marriage "marriage,"
>you can call a cabbage a "cantaloupe."
>
>Words mean things.

You've said that. Meanings change, or the application of words expand.

I say that the "man & woman" part of your definition of "marriage"
only reflects the application of the word in the past, not its actual
meaning.

>>>>>>>>>Neither is a same-sex "marriage" performed in my state recognized in
>>>>>>>>>every
>>>>>>>>>other state. Such recognition varies from state to state. I don't
>>>>>>>>>know
>>>>>>>>>where
>>>>>>>>>you got the idea that there's some "umbrella law" that says
>>>>>>>>>otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't. I'm looking forward at what might be needed and what
>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> be passed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No such thing is needed, and it won't pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is needed. People who wish to marry a member of their own sex are
>>>>>> unable to under current law.
>>>>>
>>>>>As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
>>>>>same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man
>>>>>and
>>>>>a kitty/TV set/other man.
>>>>
>>>> The old slippery slope straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Again, we're talking about consenting adult *humans* here.
>>>
>>>But why? If you can change the meaning of a word to include same sex where
>>>it didn't mean that before, then you're throwing out the old familiar
>>>meaning and you can have the word mean whatever you want -- including man
>>>and his favorite electronic device, I suppose.
>>
>> You can keep setting up that same old straw man if you wish, but
>> you're only making yourself look ridiculous.
>>
>>>> When and if sentient non-humans come around we'll talk about going
>>>> beyond that, but not before. Meanwhile minors & sub-sentients can't
>>>> give consent.
>>>
>>>Why not, if you're throwing out the old meaning?
>>
>> Expanding it. A man and woman who get married are still married. It's
>> just that more people will be able to be married.
>
>That's not "expanding" a word's meaning. That's "throwing out."

Explain to me exactly how expanding the meaning of "marriage" to
include married homosexuals will make anything now considered to be
marriage no longer marriage.

>>>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
>>>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
>>>>>> suffrage amendments were.
>>>>>
>>>>>What you want is not equal rights under the law, but a change in the
>>>>>meaning of the word "marriage."
>>>>
>>>> In order to establish more equal rights under the law. It wouldn't be
>>>> the first word redefined to that purpose.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, I'd say it wouldn't be a redefinition of the word at all, but
>>>> rather a mere expansion of its application.
>>>
>>>That's like "expanding" the meaning of "submarine" to include
>>>"automobiles."
>>
>> Not at all. When submarines were invented the meaning of "ocean-going
>> vessel" was expanded to include them. It happens. Deal with it.
>
>I didn't mention "ocean-going vessels."

No, you didn't. That was me.

You made a bad analogy (James Bond's Lotus notwithstanding) in which
the term "submarine" was expanded to include automobiles.

I offered a better analogy involving submarines that actually
parallels the expansion of "marriage" to include married gay couples.

Before submarines came around, an "ocean-going vessel" would pretty
much be assumed to float on the surface. I wouldn't be surprised to
find dictionaries from the time including that in the definition. Then
submarines came and "ocean-going vessel" dropped the
floating-on-the-surface part of its definition.

Before gay marriage came around, a "marriage" would pretty much be
assumed to be between a man and a woman. Not surprisingly, many
dictionaries from the time include that in the definition. Now gay
marriage has come and "marriage" will be dropping the man-and-woman
part of its definition.

Dictionaries describe the times; they don't define them.

>The original and still correct meaning of "marriage" isn't going anywhere.
>You deal with it. I'm quite content already.

I'm not the one who's going to have to deal with anything, my friend.
Sorry.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"John A." <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
>>>>>news: om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"John A." <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:2nh3r65pv2grp6abs9hk3cpmehjr5pij4c@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:um71r69fgc4psk4tsqmmiqrf9c8tjtl536@4 ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>> <>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:d170r6lhqivmq749ijdv7e8bs5glkp1phu @4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
>>>>>>>>>>>concealed
>>>>>>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding
>>>>>>>>>>>mine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
>>>>>>>>>> marriages
>>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
>>>>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>>>>>>understatement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>>>>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
>>>>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No one is being discriminated against here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If a
>>>>>
>>>>>It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything else.
>>>>>There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious
>>>>>connection
>>>>>whatever.
>>>>
>>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
>>>
>>>How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom of
>>>religion"?
>>
>> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
>> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
>> that freedom.
>
>Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding bigamy
>infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many wives as they
>wanted, and I would have to agree with you. Similarly, I suppose Muslims'
>mutliple marriages would be forbidden in this country. I am not aware that
>many people want the right to bigamy allowed *and recognized* in this
>country, however.

I think that bigamy (and polyandry too, if that's the right term)
should be legal too. Not my style but I don't begrudge anyone it works
for so long as everyone in it likes it. (The plural of 'spouse' is
'spice', they say.) The whole one-man-one-woman thing is, I think, an
artifact of the early Christian dominance in this country. When
religion in a country is a bit homogenous people tend to be a bit
blind as to what is universal and what is particular to their own
religion. As people become more aware of the diversity that exists,
corrections can be and are made.

>Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right to create
>laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men and women, on
>the basis that the people have some right to establish reasonable and
>acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In most localities you
>cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia in public, relieve yourself
>on a public street, etc., even if you follow some religion that regards such
>actions as proper and desirable.

Such actions have an effect on the general public so are reasonable to
regulate.

>> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
>> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.
>
>There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community makes rules
>about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but the community is not
>obliged to change its standards to make you happy. This is especially true
>when it is *your* intention to infringe on *their* reasonable standards of
>behavior, by forcing them to accept a change that they don't want to accept.

When enough of the community is aware of the inequities of an existing
law it can change.

>This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom." Those are
>just red herrings, and silly ones at that.

Not at all. What's silly is your insistence that things don't change,
and that people who don't currently enjoy the rights that others do
shouldn't. In both cases, they do.