Gay rights law foes must pay court

AP via The Washington Times ^ | November 1, 2001 | Tom Stuckey, AP

[Khepera]

The constatution does not tell us everything we need to know. The Bible on the other hand does. It's a bigger document too.

[OBAFGKM]

"I am not saying that everyone should be Christian..."

No, you're just saying that everyone should conduct himself according to your particular interpretation of it.

[Khepera]

God says Thou shalt not Murder. Did you miss that point or are you just trying to get your selfish way by being deceitful?

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

I am getting married next Saturday. My wife-to-be and I take our vows very seriously. If Gays want to be different in their sexuality then fine, but don't expect the same rights of majority. God bless the Catholic Church for being a Rock of morality.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your post.

[Skooz]

Isn't this precisely the sort of reasoning that recently led to unfortunate incidents in New York & Arlington?

Uhh...no. It is why so many Christians defied the Nazis and harbored Jews in World War II Europe. Nice try.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your ORIGINAL post.

[FormerLib]

And if God wanted people to eat pork, he would have put that in the Book.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the book of Acts. In there you will find why Christians are not bound by the Jewish Law except where sexual morality is concerned.

Pardon me, but I fail to see why your religious notions should have any bearing whatsoever on secular law.

Because those moral traditions are sound societal traditions as well. Would you have us lift the bans on murder and theft simply because they are also Judeo-Christian religious notions?

Perhaps you should tell us why you believe it is acceptable to the Gaystapo to block allowing the people to have a say in whether or not this misguided legislation should become law.

[OBAFGKM]

"God defined marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman."

No flames or ad hominems please, this is a serious challenge:

Betcha can't come up with a definition of "man" and "woman" that would pass muster in a serious court challenge.

[FormerLib]

Perfect rationale for murdering the infidels

Sorry, but you are the one who even suggested anything of the sort. Nice try, but you're spouting nonsense.

[FormerLib]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your ORIGINAL post.

Apology accepted. These things happen.

This isn't the first time that someone, including me, has read things on the forum and thought that the poster was saying something quite different from what was intended.

[FormerLib]

Betcha can't come up with a definition of "man" and "woman" that would pass muster in a serious court challenge.

But I'll wager that you could talk for hours as to what the definition of "is" is! ;-)

[Catie]

I'm delighted to hear that Judge Lerner is assigned to this case. I worked for him and am confident that he will issue a fair decision.

[OBAFGKM]

"It is why so many Christians defied the Nazis and harbored Jews in World War II Europe. Nice try."

More than that, it's right on the money. The terrorists broke men's laws specifically because they saw a higher calling in God's law. Your World War II example is a red herring.

[OBAFGKM]

"It is why so many Christians defied the Nazis and harbored Jews in World War II Europe."

(Was that a flame or an ad hominem?)

[FormerLib]

The terrorists broke men's laws specifically because they saw a higher calling in God's law.

But they also violated God's law against the murder of innocents. Sounds as if they were chasing some interpretation, much as some of the pro-homo cheerleaders will attempt to quibble over the definition of "man" and "woman."

The rescuers of the Holocaust and the Pro-Life movement in the nation are prime examples of how God's Law must prevail.

So, if you are so dedicated to the law of men, why are you against the votes having a voice in this law?

[Khepera]

Common sense should tell you that that is 1 MALE and 1 FEMALE. Words may be twisted in a court of law by attorneys (from Old French Attorne which means to twist or in this case Word Twisters) but you and I and everyone watching this thread knows what is meant by 1 man and 1 woman. Your challenge makes you look ridiculous.

[Skooz]

More than that, it's right on the money. The terrorists broke men's laws specifically because they saw a higher calling in God's law. Your World War II example is a red herring.

Wrong. The terrorists did not break their laws when they committed their acts. They broke our laws, but not necessarily those of their state(s). God's law (according to the Bible) clearly states "Thou shalt not kill." Therefore, to break the law of our nation and commit such a crime, is to also break God's law.

The World War II example devastates your argument, therefore you falsely claim it to be a "red herring." You do so because you cannot refute it.

[OBAFGKM]

"It is why so many Christians defied the Nazis and harbored Jews in World War II Europe."

Ooops. Wrong scratch pad. I meant to post:

"But I'll wager that you could talk for hours as to what the definition of "is" is!"

(Was that a flame or an ad hominem?)

Bet that was confusing!

[FreeTally]

You brought up exactly what I first thought. Too bad the other posters here just want to argue about "is queer marriage right", when this seems to be another legal screwing by the courts. The Gaystopo "challenged the validity of the sigatures", and now the petition takers have to pay for someone to "validate" the signatures??? What kind of screwed up logic is that? The only reasonable course of action is this: If some sigatures are not valid, and there are not enough valid ones to get it on the ballot, then the petitioner pays. Otherwise, those who challeneged the validity of the signatures should pay. Otherwise, anytime a petition is taken to get a ballot initiative, someone could just challenege the validity of the signatures hoping the cost will be too heavy for the petitioners.