Dear Mary...

"Magda" wrote in message
...

Oh, you mean that you are ??


I already understand it. I've been trying to help you understand. A little
effort on your part would help.

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

: "Douglas Berry" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Which is an unacceptable violation of the California Constitution,
: Article 1, Section 31, because it discriminates on the basis of sex.
:

: How is there discrimination if everyone is treated the same?

"Anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no
discrimination."
This is like saying that requiring blacks to attend one school
system and whites another is not discrimination because the same
restrictions apply to both--whites can't go to the black schools any
more than blacks can go to the white schools.
And, believe me, this argument was made...

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...

"Anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex so there is no
discrimination."
This is like saying that requiring blacks to attend one school
system and whites another is not discrimination because the same
restrictions apply to both--whites can't go to the black schools any
more than blacks can go to the white schools.


Actually, it's not like that at all. I have tried to help you understand
this issue, but you're clearly determined to remain ignorant. So be it.
I've done all I can do.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Actually, it's not like that at all. I have tried to help you understand
this issue, but you're clearly determined to remain ignorant. So be it.
I've done all I can do.


Sorry, I thought it was Magda responding again.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Magda" wrote:

I'll repeat myself (and others) : luckily for humanity, US is NOT the
only country on Earth, and in THREE OTHER COUNTRIES gays
are already allowed to marry, and it's just the beginning.

Gays are allowed to marry in the US.

Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.

--
Delete the numerals from my email address to reply.

"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
...

Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.


Gays are allowed to marry any consenting, non-related adult of the opposite
sex in the US, just as heterosexuals are. They are treated exactly the
same.

Larry Kessler wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Magda" wrote:

I'll repeat myself (and others) : luckily for humanity, US is NOT the
only country on Earth, and in THREE OTHER COUNTRIES gays
are already allowed to marry, and it's just the beginning.

Gays are allowed to marry in the US.

Gays are not allowed to marry the consenting, non-related adult of
their choice in the US. Heterosexuals are.

And what was that that was going on in San Francisco's City Hall all of last
week? Or did somebody cut off SF and float it out to sea and it's no longer
part of the US?

George Z.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

No, they ceremonies have been performed, and the certificates, same as
the one my wife and I have, have been issued.


Those certificates are not valid.

I am not so sure about that. True, IMHO they should not have been issued but
since they WERE issued by competent authority they are as valid an any other
license issued by the government. Marriage is controlled by the government
power to issue licenses. I say good luck to all who embark on the great
adventure of marriage. Take care,
--
Ajax Telamon
"No profession or occupation is more
pleasing than the military; a profession
or exercise both noble in execution
and noble in its cause. No utility either
more just or universal than the
protection of the repose or defence
of the greatness of one's country.
The company and daily conversation
of so many noble, young and active
men cannot but be well-pleasing to you."

Michel de Montaigne (1588)

In article ,
"Ajax Telamon" wrote:

No, they ceremonies have been performed, and the certificates, same as
the one my wife and I have, have been issued.


Those certificates are not valid.

I am not so sure about that. True, IMHO they should not have been issued but
since they WERE issued by competent authority they are as valid an any other
license issued by the government.


But competent authorities, not something SF is known for in its city
government, do not have the power to alter state govermental forms (as
SF did). That alone, should make all those licenses invalid.



--Mike

"Ajax Telamon" wrote in message
...

I am not so sure about that.


I am.