Deep Shame

[jimnyc]

Hal Turner has a good idea.

a) Attend every ceremony in which faggots are being "married." When the audience is asked "If anyone knows why these two should not be married, let him speak now or forever hold his peace" you stand up and say:

"I object to this marriage. It is a violation of California law and the laws of almighty God. These persons are both (Insert sex here) (i.e. men or women) and it is a biological obscenity and gross moral terpitude that they be married." This will upset the ceremony and offend the entire audience, so be sure to say it loudly.

b) Get the name of any public official presidieng over such a ceremony, then file a freedom of information act request to determine the name of the Bonding Company or Insurance Company that "Bonded" that public official, the exact Bond number which covers that official and the Dollar amount of the Bond.

c) File a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California against that public official, for Breach of COntract in that the official swore to uphold the Constitution of California and to "faithfully execute the duties of the Office upon which he/she entered" and thus violated (breached) that Oath/Contract by "marrying" these queers.

d) Once the suit is filed, get the docket number and file a "Notice of Attachment" with the bonding company or Insurance company covering that Official, which states that you are "Attaching" the Bond of that public official for the amount of (The total Dollar coverage of the Bond) under Docket Number (insert Docket Number here) under a suit filed in the California Superior Court.

Once you "Attach" the bond, the public official will no longer have coverage and will be unable to effect any duties of his office, rendering him/her totally powerless.

http://www.halturnershow.com/

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
No, erradicating them is what he had in mind and what he tried to do. You can try to paint me with the same brush as a nazi but you'll only look ridiculous in the end. No where in my posts or in anyone else's post (except Big D) have we indicated that homosexuals should be killed or rounded up and put in concentration camps.

You are a poor example of a rational human being if your brain can't comprehend the difference and use your brain only for such childish and misguided finger pointing.

Then you do not understand the dangers of not providing equal protection under the law. What you advocate is an Apartheid-type of status for homosexuals.

When you claim that gays can hire lawyers to create custom contracts you are promoting a concept that they do not have equal protection.

How would you feel if we extended this concept to other areas? How about women having to pay a lawyer to draw up a special ballot in order to vote? How about blacks having to pay a lawyer to create special documents in order to be able to drive?

From a government point of view, marriage is a legal, contractual relationship. It should be a state issue. The Federal government has no business amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages.

 

[eric]

Back to my question then :

Where does equal protection end ?

Why can't I marry 5 women if gays can marry ?

 

[wonderwench]

Equal protection involves the laws being applied equally to individuals. If the law provides for two people to form a legally recognized union, than any two people should be able to do so. If the law provides for multiple partners, then you would have a case to claim equal protection. It doesn't, so the equal protection clause does not apply to polygamy.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Then you do not understand the dangers of not providing equal protection under the law. What you advocate is an Apartheid-type of status for homosexuals.

When you claim that gays can hire lawyers to create custom contracts you are promoting a concept that they do not have equal protection.

How would you feel if we extended this concept to other areas? How about women having to pay a lawyer to draw up a special ballot in order to vote? How about blacks having to pay a lawyer to create special documents in order to be able to drive?

From a government point of view, marriage is a legal, contractual relationship. It should be a state issue. The Federal government has no business amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages.

Once again you miss the mark. Homosexuals are treated equally under the marriage laws Even a homosexual male is allowed to marry a homosexual female. Thus, the protection is afforded to every single male and every single female.

 

[Big D]

Marry who ever you want.

Let's forget about all that. Let's just be "open minded," as liberals are so fond of saying.

Instead, let's think about all the new doors this new development opens up! Yes! In the middle of November 2003, the world is now bright and shiny, full of new prospects and propositions for us all? What prospects?

I thought you'd never ask:
http://www.hoodratz.net/marriage.htm

 

[jon_forward]

grab ahold of the rope Big D, before who ever has ahold of the other end lets go!!!!

 

[freeandfun1]

Excellent reply BIG D! LOL

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by eric
Back to my question then :

Where does equal protection end ?

Why can't I marry 5 women if gays can marry ?

come to your senses man! you really want that many in-laws???

 

[jon_forward]

5 WIVES....OMG...pms 24/7.....fella be dead inside of 2 months....tops...

 

[wonderwench]

Unless the women were all bi and took care of each other.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Unless the women were all bi and took care of each other.

now <i>that</i> would be interesting

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
It is a violation of... the laws of almighty God.

Which God?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by eric
Back to my question then :

Where does equal protection end ?

Why can't I marry 5 women if gays can marry ?

If they'd put up with you, why not?

Polygamy and polyandry are acceptable family structures in many parts of the world.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
If they'd put up with you, why not?

Polygamy and polyandry are acceptable family structures in many parts of the world.

How about a brother and a siter marrying each other? Should that be ok?

 

[Johnney]

only in arkansas

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
What's a "siter" ?

Wanna lose the sarcastic spell check??? Everyone makes a typo or two.

 

[Big D]

If you have a hot cousin out there, now's the time to act. You've known him or her for most of your life...why not for the rest of your life? Marriages are intended to be lifelong...and that's just what you and Bobby Joe or Sally May can do. Why not? If you are in love, who does the government think they are to stop you?! HOW DARE THEY! It's all about the relationship, of course...and since morality is relative these days and since there's nothing wrong with gay civil marriage, you should be allowed to marry a relative.

How you'll handle the deformed kids later down the road is beside the point because supposedly, relationships are not about sex, even though they have everything to do with sexual preference. How that works, I'm not too sure.

See Bully, now you can marry your mama and have a reason for still living at home.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
How about a brother and a siter marrying each other? Should that be ok?

In a word, no...Such a union is unhealthy for both individuals as it is indicative of an unhealthy family structure. Secondly, such unions are most often a coerced...a form of abuse. Thirdly, the chances of birth defects in the issue of such a union rise tremendously.

From a purely reproductive standpoint, marriage serves as a barrier to such unions and promotes diversity within the gene-pool.

Same gender couples pose no threat, beyond a psychological threat to those who fear such unions, to anyone. There is no objective reason to prohibit them.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Big D
If you have a hot cousin out there, now's the time to act. You've known him or her for most of your life...why not for the rest of your life? Marriages are intended to be lifelong...and that's just what you and Bobby Joe or Sally May can do. Why not? If you are in love, who does the government think they are to stop you?! HOW DARE THEY! It's all about the relationship, of course...and since morality is relative these days and since there's nothing wrong with gay civil marriage, you should be allowed to marry a relative.

How you'll handle the deformed kids later down the road is beside the point because supposedly, relationships are not about sex, even though they have everything to do with sexual preference. How that works, I'm not too sure.

See Bully, now you can marry your mama and have a reason for still living at home.

Stop your blathering. Nothing I've said is an espousal of the moral relativism (no pun intended) that you're babbling about.