Are you sure you did not make this whole story up. Even Jon Stewart’s writers could not have done a better job.

maybe it was because dead people don’t have sex and there are all types of “underground” sex parties on all variations of the sexual spectrum.

And also possibly because most normal people aren’t into necrophilia. And additionally because there are some people that think that aids is the result/fault of unprotected bath house sex in the gay community. So please excuse me if I didn’t “get” your “joke” and wanted you to clarify what you meant.

I’m not sure I understand his thought process but many folks in Rhode Island welcome the announcement.

You are correct. I sent that from my phone.

There’s only one problem- Rhode Island is too small to hold a decent freezer.

You wrote: “Underground sex in the gay community has resulted in devastating consequences for public health.”

That’s right. One must be careful whose one tombmate is for eternity.

“have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won’t ever need such a pill. And anyway, it’s no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections…I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn’t want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.”

Digby on Alternet

On a purely philosophical level I may agree with you (no gov. in marriage), it’s the application that gets things get tangled up. We’d basically have to restructure our entire society in ways that counteract a large chunk of human evolution. We are after all a social species that organizes itself based largely on genetic ties, and evidence indicates that we probably have been since before we were human.

We’re hard-wired to certain social arrangements, the smart thing is for the government to recognize that and act accordingly, which is (with the current inexcusable exception) what our current legal system does.

how so?

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/

Other discussions can be found by putting terms like “natural born citizen” and “Orly Taitz” and “Donofrio” and “Retired General” in the Search window in the upper right hand corner of blog.

Thank you for the link to the case. The Indiana Court of Appeals is right on the money. The case is Ankeny and Kruse v. Governor of Indiana, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Tho pro se plaintiffs sued the Governor for failing to block the Electoral Votes for Obama. The trial court dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court discussed the merits of the claim that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two United States citizens. It rejected the claim outright.

It correctly relied on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, ruling that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens.

I will post this under the latest Taitz thread so that the discussion can be continued there.

You are deriving some interesting legal issues, though.

I forgot our immigration policy. That’s a biggie. We’d have to change that one to get government out of recognizing marriages.

Oh, and you’d have to forget about having your family live on base with you if you’re in the military.

In order to do that we’d have to stop letting family get advantages that non-family doesn’t get to. Think hospitals.

The only reasonable solution is from Professor T:
_________________________________

Quote:

“Personally, while I support recognizing marriage for gay couples as an alternative, I remain convinced that the best approach is for all couples to register civil unions with the states and leave the term “marriage” to individual religions to define, here.”

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/04/maine-voters-repeal-law-allowing-gays-to-marry/
_________________________________

I want the government out of the marriage business; forever and for always ’til death do *couples* part.

*of any style plumbing or sexual inclinations*

don’t you mean this gives you the opportunity to kiss their asses goodbye?

okay. you are generally a reasonable guy, so here are my questions….
how does gay marriage affect you personally? would you eve know if a couple was married and if that marriage holds the same meaning for them as yours does for you?

if you had a gay child who wanted to marry his/her partner would you not want their happiness?

the governor’s veto says nothing other than he’s going to be out of a job come next year.

http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=98884

Homesexuality ISN’T a choice, homophobia IS.