Thank you Mr. Prejudice.

I believe that this attack on Americans created like us will backfire
now that the court-appointed alleged Leader has proposed invading the
sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution.

He will end up in a greater quagmire than his invasion of Iraq.

Fair-minded Americans who love equality will come to understand this
outrageousness of this attack.

They will then become much more afraid of the attacker than they could
ever be of any average loving couple that simply wants to marry.

Today's low water mark in U.S. history is a symptom of a politician who
is in deep trouble. He is also in deep denial about how anti-prejudice
most Americans really are at heart.

If I am wrong and we become Unconstitutional soon (probably by next
year?) then, at least, no amount of American-style prejudice can undo
our awesome Canadian marriage.

David

Bye4now from
Mr. and Mr. Timothy & David
Legally married in Canada
September 3, 2003
after 27 years together in love!

http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-10/107675490946670.xml

"Timothy and/or David - Harrisburg" <TimHarrisburg@webtv.net> wrote in
message news:22588-403BE2D9-582@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net... Thank you Mr. Prejudice. I believe that this attack on Americans created like us will backfire now that the court-appointed alleged Leader has proposed invading the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution. He will end up in a greater quagmire than his invasion of Iraq. Fair-minded Americans who love equality will come to understand this outrageousness of this attack. They will then become much more afraid of the attacker than they could ever be of any average loving couple that simply wants to marry. Today's low water mark in U.S. history is a symptom of a politician who is in deep trouble. He is also in deep denial about how anti-prejudice most Americans really are at heart. If I am wrong and we become Unconstitutional soon (probably by next year?) then, at least, no amount of American-style prejudice can undo our awesome Canadian marriage. David Bye4now from Mr. and Mr. Timothy & David Legally married in Canada September 3, 2003 after 27 years together in love!
http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-10/107675490946670.xml

It's terrible that he said what he said, but I think he's only advocating
the amendment because it's something the majority of Americans (sadly) seem
to support. It's supposed to avert our attention from the fact that he's put
the budget into a bighuge deficit and he started a war with lies and deceit.
He's trying to focus on trivial things, and it's working--the media's front
stories are all about the marriage amendment and stuff, and the secondary
stuff is about the lies and the Iraq war... and now Bush is trying to bring
Bin Laden back into the picture.. wouldn't it be "convenient" if they
"found" him in October, right before the election?
wow that got off topic. oh well

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:48:41 -0500 (EST), Timothy and/or David - Harrisburg <TimHarrisburg@webtv.net> wrote: Thank you Mr. Prejudice. I believe that this attack on Americans created like us will backfire now that the court-appointed alleged Leader has proposed invading the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is designed to be amended.

It is also designed to _protect_ rights, not to restrict them.
snip Today's low water mark in U.S. history is a symptom of a politician who is in deep trouble. He is also in deep denial about how anti-prejudice most Americans really are at heart. You really think? With 38 states having some sort of defense of marriage statute including CALIFORNIA (that the Mayor of SinFrancisco is violating), you really think most people are "anti-prejudice"

Unfortunately, you are right here. Prejudice remains popular.

Timothy and/or David - Harrisburg <TimHarrisburg@webtv.net> wrote:
Mr. and Mr. Timothy & David Legally married in Canada September 3, 2003 after 27 years together in love!

Congratulations. :-)

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc3og3u.5gd.tony@home.cigardiary.com... This is not an attack. This is not changing a thing. You can't marry before the amendment and you won't be able to marry after the amendment. The only difference is that it ***** slaps the activist judges who don't understand that the judicial branch of government *interprets* law. It doesn't *make* law.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan that the amendment proposed by Rep. Musgrave
would rule out civil unions as well as marriage for gays,
and that it would constrain legislatures and well as courts.

The activism of judges is a valid concern,
as is civil disobedience by elected officials.
(Joe Scarborough raised a good point that SF Mayor Newsom
and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
were engaging in similar behavior.)

The Musgrave amendment appears to be an attempt
to prevent a change in policy in the future,
when the dramatic shift in public opinion on gay partnerships
reaches a majority.

The real crisis here is that civil disobedience by the couples in SF
is changing many minds in the nation as a whole.

The dire predictions before Vermont established gay civil union
were not observed. If the Massachusetts gay marriage law
is established and gays marry there,
the real political risk is that the public
will realize that this is not a threat to them.

In order to prevent this outcome,
contrary to conservative beliefs,
we need to betray a few more women
as Robert Bauman's wife was betrayed.

"Kill just a little to save a lot more" -- indeed.
--
Tsam

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:22:37 GMT, Tsam Nami
<tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc3og3u.5gd.tony@home.cigardiary.com... This is not an attack. This is not changing a thing. You can't marry before the amendment and you won't be able to marry after the amendment. The only difference is that it ***** slaps the activist judges who don't understand that the judicial branch of government *interprets* law. It doesn't *make* law. I agree with Andrew Sullivan that the amendment proposed by Rep. Musgrave would rule out civil unions as well as marriage for gays, and that it would constrain legislatures and well as courts.

Your concern is valid. And in the case of "civil unions" I'd like them to
be able t obe applied to any two citizens regardless of gender or familial
relationship. That means that a dad and his daughter living together
could get a civil union, and a brother and sister living together (as my
wife's aunt and uncle did for over 30 years) could get one two. Two
straight spinsters could, and two priests living in the same rectory could
also.
The activism of judges is a valid concern, as is civil disobedience by elected officials. (Joe Scarborough raised a good point that SF Mayor Newsom and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore were engaging in similar behavior.)

The Mayor of SanFrancisco should be arrested. If you are going to civilly
disobey, you need to take the hit.
The Musgrave amendment appears to be an attempt to prevent a change in policy in the future, when the dramatic shift in public opinion on gay partnerships reaches a majority.

If the country wants to repeal the definition of marriage act, they are
welcome to in the future. They did that with prohibition.
The real crisis here is that civil disobedience by the couples in SF is changing many minds in the nation as a whole.

Also, the media isn't helping. They are the ones who cover not people
like David and his "husband", but two men dressed up in wedding gowns with
Dykes on Bikes for groomsmen.
The dire predictions before Vermont established gay civil union were not observed. If the Massachusetts gay marriage law is established and gays marry there, the real political risk is that the public will realize that this is not a threat to them.

But what happens when those gays who are married in Mass. decide they'd
like to move to, say, Utah. Or maybe they want to move to Montana? How
about Lancaster PA. maybe?
In order to prevent this outcome, contrary to conservative beliefs, we need to betray a few more women as Robert Bauman's wife was betrayed.

I don't get the analogy.
"Kill just a little to save a lot more" -- indeed.

You'll have to explain.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
The Mayor of SanFrancisco should be arrested. If you are going to civilly disobey, you need to take the hit.

Arrested? What crime has he committed? Not all civil disobedience
constitutes a crime.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc3q1nk.6bn.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:22:37 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc3og3u.5gd.tony@home.cigardiary.com... This is not an attack. This is not changing a thing. You can't marry before the amendment and you won't be able to marry after the
amendment. The only difference is that it ***** slaps the activist judges who
don't understand that the judicial branch of government *interprets* law. It doesn't *make* law. I agree with Andrew Sullivan that the amendment proposed by Rep.
Musgrave would rule out civil unions as well as marriage for gays, and that it would constrain legislatures and well as courts. Your concern is valid. And in the case of "civil unions" I'd like them to be able t obe applied to any two citizens regardless of gender or familial relationship. That means that a dad and his daughter living together could get a civil union, and a brother and sister living together (as my wife's aunt and uncle did for over 30 years) could get one two. Two straight spinsters could, and two priests living in the same rectory could also.

If only "civil unions" had the same "benefits" that "marriage" did.

-"Katie"
(who doesn't like it "when" people "arbitrarily" "put" things in "quotes")

Tsam Nami <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> commented on Tony Miller's <tony@cigardiary.com> reply to me: The Mayor of SanFrancisco should be arrested. If you are going to civilly disobey, you need to take the hit. Arrested? What crime has he committed? Not all civil disobedience constitutes a crime. Conservative MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough equated Mayor Newsom's defiance of the law to that of removed Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was supported by religious conservatives when he defied courts to place and to not willingly remove a Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse. A publicly elected official who chooses which laws to obey is acting questionably.

So? Did Judge Moore go to jail? I think not. He just had his rock
removed.


(snip)
Civil disobedience has historically included a willingness to pay the legal consequences of ones acts of protest. It is reasonable that there be greater consequences for exercising government power beyond the current laws than for protesting them as a citizen.

Agreed. But the legal consequence is not arrest unless a crime has been
commited.

I would let Mayor Newsom's actions so far off with a symbolic repremand. I responded to Joe Scarborough that if he defied a direct court order, that the equation with Moore and thus his deserving removal from office would have my support. Tony is going a step beyond my judgement, but he has a good reason to object here.

I suspect the mayor can be recalled - if that's what his constituents
want.