Some women are sold into marriage and then raped.
Posted By: Abstinence isn't the only answer. on 2009-01-24
In Reply to: There's a little word, spelled .....a-b-s-t-i-n-e-n-c-e - .
.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You got your wish. An MP was shot in the leg by looters. Women are being raped.
Police are turning in their badges because they say their homes are gone and it isn't worth it to them to get shot stopping looters. There is anarchy in New Orleans. Your with come true.
Jet not sold on ebay, sold at a loss privately. nm
.
Sex is just a small part of marriage. What marriage
So why is the fact that two people who happen to love and support each other, but who have a different concept of it than you do, are so incredibly threatening to you? Even if it WERE a 'sin' (which it absolutely is NOT), why would it be any business of yours? Did God fly down out of the sky and annoint your head, hand you a cape and superpowers, and tell you to go out and rid the world of same-sex love? I don't think so.
What happened to women sticking up for women?
nm
You were raped?
?
Bush and his cabinet have raped and pillaged
for 8 years. The pallets of cash to Iraq that were dispersed (stolen) without accounting, the 1.3 trillion the pentagon not account for, the 1.5 million in arms that was stolen in Iraq, the personal investments the GOP had in private contractors in Iraq and the negligence of the war in Afghanistan - the real front of terrorists, as we all know - is what this man has done and you RESPECT HIM?? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Do you realize that in 50 years, the suffering that will be taking place because of the debt racked up in the guise of patriotism? Bush is a fool but not a stupid man. He is a black sheep in his own family. It is irresponsible voting by people like you which has really caused this monumental assault on the entire nation which will never fully recover, regardless of what is done.
Bush and his cabinet have raped and pillaged
for 8 years. The pallets of cash to Iraq that were dispersed (stolen) without accounting, the 1.3 trillion the pentagon not account for, the 1.5 million in arms that was stolen in Iraq, the personal investments the GOP had in private contractors in Iraq and the negligence of the war in Afghanistan - the real front of terrorists, as we all know - is what this man has done and you RESPECT HIM?? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Do you realize that in 50 years, the suffering that will be taking place because of the debt racked up in the guise of patriotism? Bush is a fool but not a stupid man. He is a black sheep in his own family. It is irresponsible voting by people like you which has really caused this monumental assault on the entire nation which will never fully recover, regardless of what is done.
Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops...sm
I don't usually post reports of the bad side of US soldiers in Iraq because I believe the most of them are doing their jobs with integrity, so even after reading this it is still hard to believe. Thanks to the brave soldiers who spoke out against their comrades. This story reminds me of some of the bad stories I've heard of Vietnam.
Please somebody say it aint so...
------------------------------------------
Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops: report
Mon Jul 3, 2006 07:06 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A woman apparently at the center of a rape-murder probe by the U.S. military in Iraq was only 15 and voiced fears about soldiers' advances before she and her family were killed in March, the Washington Post said on Monday.
Quoting the mayor of Mahmudiya, near Baghdad, an unnamed hospital official and neighbors of the alleged victims, the newspaper named the woman, her parents and 7-year-old sister as having been killed in their home in the town on March 11.
The paper did not affirm the woman, Abeer Qasim Hamza, was killed by Americans, but local people quoted appeared to believe the dead family was the one involved in the U.S. investigation.
A U.S. military official in Baghdad told Reuters details of the incident they described were at odds with U.S. documents in the 10-day-old investigation of at least three soldiers. U.S. officials had the rape victim's age as 20, he said. However, he added, he was not aware of any other such cases in the area.
The U.S. military has given few details publicly. Officials say at least three soldiers are under investigation over the alleged rape of a woman and the killing of three relatives, including a child, in their home at Mahmudiya on March 12.
Two are suspected of rape and one of these, since discharged from the army, is also suspected of murder, officials said.
The Washington Post quoted Omar Janabi, who said he was a neighbor, saying Abeer Qasim's mother had told him on March 10 that the young woman had complained repeatedly about advances made toward her by U.S. soldiers at a nearby checkpoint.
Janabi told the newspaper he was one of the first people to arrive at the family house after the attack. He said he found Abeer sprawled dead in a corner, her hair and a pillow next to her consumed by fire, and her dress pushed up to her neck.
DEATH CERTIFICATES
The paper said death certificates from Mahmudiya hospital identified the victims as Abeer Qasim Hamza, 15, shot in the head and burned; her mother Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34, killed by gunshots to her head; her father Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45, whose head was smashed by bullets; and Hadeel Qasim Hamza, 7.
The inquiry was launched after two soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Regiment came forward last month to make allegations about comrades. The killings had previously been recorded by the military as the work of guerrillas, U.S. officers say.
Local residents and officials in the area, one of the most dangerous and violent in Iraq, have offered Reuters reporters conflicting accounts of incidents involving U.S. troops.
Two years after the scandal over U.S. prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib jail and coming after a string of murder charges against U.S. troops and accusations over the killing of 24 people in the western city of Haditha, the rape allegation is potentially incendiary in Iraq's conservative Muslim society.
Iraq's main organization of Sunni Muslim clerics, long hostile to the U.S. occupation, said on Sunday the Mahmudiya case revealed the real, ugly face of America.
In recent months, officials say, commanders have cracked down on rogue soldiers in a bid to gain the trust of ordinary Iraqis and of their new government after three years of growing resentment that U.S. officers say risks fuelling the insurgency.
What about the life of the raped woman,,,you are hypocritical freaks!...nm
nm
Sold!
nn
Sold!!!! Grizzly would be a better choice though.
My job was sold up the river years ago.
when to pick up my marbles and go home. I'm taking my 30 years of MT experience and medical terminology and going back into the real world to schedule surgery at the hospital where Dr. DeBakey ruled the roost in the Texas Medical Center years ago. They can't outsource me from there. I start there next week and will be making more there than at home with the best benefits found anywhere.
I may be getting old, but I learned how to read the writing on the wall decades ago and am still able to go with the flow. That flow is taking us into a new age this November and I find that downright exciting. If you want to wallow around in your gloom and doom, be my guest but trust me here when I tell you that life is too short for all that. You take yourself WAY too seriously.
How long before those are sold commercially?
'Cause I want one! HeHe
they were 10 bucks in my town before they sold out
How many mortgages got sold to other banks?
Look at the big picture. They were selling houses to anyone who would sign on the dotted line - they did not give a fig whether or not you could afford it. They then boxed up a pile of these mortgages and sold them to other banks or mortgage companies with the premise - here's a box of rocks, there's gotta be a diamond in there somewhere. They WANTED these mortgages to fail. The housing market was booming - take the down payment, pass the mortgage around - foreclose on hapless patsies - and resell the house. They were MAKING MONEY OFF OF DOING THIS!!! But, they got greedy, and that box held all rocks and no diamonds. They screwed themselves as well as the American people who fell for this sham. But who is going to suffer the most?
Yes, Obama is sickening. He has sold us out
nm
It's official!!! Obama has just sold this country
G-20 summit is now living proof that Obama has kissed everyone's butts and sold this county down the river......... Now, all European socialists will make ALL regulatory rules for ALL U.S. firms................
Thanks to all the Obama lovers and fools out there who thought he was your savior!! You better really have a savior because you're gonna need it now!!!
SORRY..... YOU CAN'T BLAME BUSH FOR THIS ONE!! OBAMA SWAGGERED HIS WAY THROUGH THIS ONE AND THERE WAS NO BUSH IN SIGHT!!!
Senator Sold Stock Before Price Dropped
Martha Stewart comes to mind.
Shares Fell Two Weeks Later
By Jonathan M. Katz Associated Press
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A03
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sold all his stock in his family's hospital corporation about two weeks before it issued a disappointing earnings report and the price fell nearly 15 percent.
Frist held an undisclosed amount of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain. On June 13, he instructed the trustee managing the assets to sell his HCA shares and those of his wife and children, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Frist.
Frist's shares were sold by July 1 and those of his wife and children by July 8, Call said. The trustee decided when to sell the shares, and the Tennessee Republican had no control over the exact time they were sold, she said.
HCA shares peaked at midyear, climbing to $58.22 a share on June 22. After slipping slightly for two weeks, the price fell to $49.90 on July 13 after the company announced its quarterly earnings would not meet analysts' expectations. On Tuesday, the shares closed at $48.76.
The value of Frist's stock at the time of the sale was not disclosed. Earlier this year, he reported holding blind trusts valued at $7 million to $35 million.
Blind trusts are used to avoid conflicts of interest. Assets are turned over to a trustee who manages them without divulging any purchases or sales and reports only the total value and income earned to the owner.
To keep the trust blind, Frist was not allowed to know how much HCA stock he owned, Call said, but he was allowed to ask for all of it to be sold.
Frist, a surgeon first elected to the Senate in 1994, had been criticized for maintaining the holdings while dealing with legislation affecting the medical industry and managed care. Call said the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has found nothing wrong with Frist's holdings in the company in a blind trust.
To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, Senator Frist went beyond what ethics requires and sold the stock, Call said. Asked why he had not done so before, she said, I don't know that he's been worried about it in the past.
An HCA spokesman said the company had no part in Frist's decision.
Frist's father, Thomas, founded the company, and his brother, Thomas Jr., is a director and leading stockholder. The family is worth $1.1 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
HCA -- formerly known as Columbia HCA Healthcare Corp. -- has been a top contributor to the senator's campaigns, donating $83,450 since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The sale of the shares was first reported by Congressional Quarterly.
John McCain said she sold it at a profit on ebay. nm
.
Tests can be thrown, college admissions bought and sold
Since when can IQ be extrapolated from SAT test scores? I'd appreciate a source citation so I can read up on that, unless you are going on those lame IQ test websites that have assigned W, O and Michelle's IQ all at 125. Fact is, brilliant people have been known to score low on SAT for a variety of reasons so that argument is not terribly convincing.
I'm going strictly on such measures as butchery of his native tongue, i.e., inability to form more than monosyllabic 6-word sentences without a teleprompt or cue cards, how challenged he is to complete a whole thought and his dependence on behind-the-scenes heavyweights to engineer his campaigns and run his presidency, just to name a few.
W was denied admission to St. John's Academy (HS) and UT School of Law. This does not happen for no reason. His distinguishing accomplishment at his Dad's alma mater was joining the secret society of the Skull and Bones brotherhood. I'm a firm believer that strings were pulled on his behalf (as they were on so many other occasions) to get him into the ivy league track, unlike Obama, who did it the old-fashioned way (scholastic achievement) when he transferred to Columbia and was ultimately admitted to Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude.
Bush does have an impressive record of failing at almost everything he every tried to do before (and after) his political career: In abstentia service in the National Guard, bombed election bid for the Texas House of Representatives in 1978, and an oil company that went bust which he left under a cloud of suspicion of insider trading. He did manage to capitalize on his 5-year dalliance with the Texas Rangers baseball team (could't really call what he did there REAL work) just long enough to get good name recognition for his run for gov and make a profitable sale of his shares in the team.
This less than stellar performance was totally eclipsed by the multitude of screw-ups while in office, way too much to get into in the confines of this forum. Bottom line for me is that his behavior and performance is very uninspiring, less than mediocre and not at all suggestive of much in the way of creativity or intellect....in other words, the polar opposite of the O. Hence the statement, IQ is good for the country. The wisdom angle was somebody else's attempt to side-step the issue of W's stupidity.
A look into JM's first marriage...sm
While John McCain was a prisoner, his wife Carol never lost hope. During his incarceration as a prisoner of war, Carol was involved in a horrific car accident that almost took her life, having to go through about 20 operations in hopes that she would walk again. While her husband was gone, Ross Perot paid her medical bills that were not covered by John's government insurance. When he got back from Vietnam and saw the shape she was in, no longer a beautiful slim model, and quite disabled, he started carousing and ended up meeting Cindy his present wife who was young, beautiful and rich. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
NO. Marriage is between a man
x
Marriage
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want to have civil unions, that's perfectly fine with me but what they have is not and never will be a marriage. It's only a few squeaky wheels that everyone gives all the attention to. There are FAR MORE people in this country that are opposed to gays wanting to call their unions a marriage than are okay with it. In the last couple of decades, everyone tries to be so PC and not step on anyone's toes to the point we just let everything pass as okay, when it is not.
We let abortion laws pass when there are far more who oppose abortion. We let gays think they have the right to marry when there are far more people who are adamantly against it. It is my business when everyone runs all over the majority of us just to pacify the few who just like to push the envelope on everything. Gays have rights just like me. No one is ever happy with what they have. Gays can adopt children just like anyone and those children are theirs forever....just like anyone else. They want their partner to come to the hospital when they're sick, they can list their name as the next of kin just like anyone else and that has to be honored by the hospital. All this garbage they throw out there about their rights is just that, garbage and hooplah to get their agendas pushed.
Flame all you want....
Marriage
is between a man and a woman. Same sex people will never be married, just as they can't ever have sexual intercourse. Beam me up Scottie.
She is challeging marriage...sm
It is my *assumption* (but you know what they say about assumptions) that she is not married and/or doesn't understand what it takes to be a supportive wife. Sometimes we have to let go of something we want or enjoy for the benefit of the bigger picture.
Why is gay marriage an issue?
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks.
OK. So how do you feel about same-sex marriage?
For or against? And why?
 I am personally for it. It hurts nobody, but for some reason all the religiosos seem to be terrified of it.
All the old subjects are pretty stale. So here's a new one. State your views.
But if marriage is 'sacred', then why do so many -sm
end in separation, or divorce, or WORSE? Such as domestic violence and sometimes murder?
I think marriage vows should be about love, respect, and loyalty to another person, not about their religion or their gender.
Some of my gay friends are now legally married in this state, and it changes nothing in my life, or anyone else's. But it changes so much for them. They enjoyed their ceremonies as much as any couple and their loved ones would. And having the same legal rights as anyone else is huge, as well.
No, who or what gender another person falls in love with and marries has absolutely no bearing on religion, or on anyone else's lives. Isn't religion supposed to be about love for one's fellow humans, and about peace and charity?
Religious Right and Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.
What exactly do they want a president to do about it?
About homosexual marriage....
they put it to a vote in one of the most liberal states in the country (california) and the people voted to ban it. It PASSED. In with Obama, out with gay marriage. Gotta love those Californians. Wonder what all those gays Newsom "married" are gonna do now??? Bit of a sticky wicket there.
Marriage is more than just a label (sm)
The Difference between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
by Kathy Belge
You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?
First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.
What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.
Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.
What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple.
What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?
Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
Homosexual" marriage" is very
offensive to me, yet there are still those pushing it in my face. Homo is a shortened version of the word homosexual. If you are so sensitive, I can type the entire word. There are African-Americans in my family and I have never used the F word in my life. You DO have a choice in who you love. If you didn't child molesters wouldn't be prosecuted because they wouldn't be able to stop their "attractions" and "love" of children. Prosecuting them would be inhuman. A law can't stop an attraction. It can only stop you from acting on it and consent can always be changed. Age is just a number and with all the people who feel like their "love" should not be controlled, no telling when our children will be the next targets. There is no homosexual gene so give that a rest. People of all persuasions can change their feelings on a whim. I find the entire aspect of homosexuality disrespectful to the human race. If you don't like what someone thinks, let's try to change the law and stop their thoughts. Homosexuals are just like BIG BROTHER.
Marriage is for one man and one woman
If gays and lesbians want to show their commitment, then a civil union is for them. Don't redefine something thousands of years old just because it's "politically correct." I am so sick of it political correctness. I understand civil unions so that G/L couples can have health insurance, etc., but don't change what marriage means to so many of the rest of us. It is so much more than a legality and a commitment, it's about becoming one and having children, and continuing the tradition for generations.
Defining marriage is not a theocracy
It's just common sense since two people of the common sex cannot procreate.
...and no I don't advocate a theocracy.
It is like the old song Love and Marriage
You can't have one without the other.
President Obama inherited the nightmare that was created by George W. Bush. You cannot talk about what President Obama is doing without discussing the fact that George W. Bush and his cronies destroyed this country.
No one's "changing the tradition of marriage".
X
Oh geez - are you still here? Yeah, same-sex marriage
this act was most likely done by a heterosexual male. And you know what? Sometimes the most heinous acts are committed by ultra-religious people. So your standard of 'morals' doesn't apply here. Get on the internet someday and look up how many sex offenders live in YOUR neighborhood, maybe even right next-door or across the street. Their offenses have nothing to do with what you think is the 'loose morals' of the country, it has to do with the mental illness of the perpetrator.
BTW - how old are you, anyway? 85? 95? 105? It seems like, in your mind anyway, you're living in a time that was more than a century ago.
Bigamists, polygamists and marriage, oh my! sm
The prefix "poly" means multiple, thus polygamy means multiple marriages at the same time.
The previx "bi" means 2, thus bigamy means 2 marriages at the same time.
Either way, both terms mean more than 1 marriage at a time.
Polygamists and bigamists are merely groups of people who, for whatever reason, want to marry their partners, just as gays want to do. You claim that gay marriage is a union between 2 people who love each other and who happen to be of the same sex. Who is to say that polygamists and bigamists don't love all their partners and want to marry them as well?
Love may or may not be in the equation for same sex marriage (even straight people are sometimes known to marry for reasons other than love), but another reason, if not the larger reason, is for the other benefits a legal marriage affords such as the right to make decisions for each other in medical and legal situations.
Therefore, what is stopping polygamists and bigamists from demanding the same rights to marriage?
Absolutely nothing.
Then perhaps abolishing marriage is the answer
By your reasoning, allowing men to marry women seems to make gay couples think they have the right to be married. Therefore, better to eliminate women rather than let those uppity homos think they can be married.
A woman's right to vote was denied for years because of the fear that women would abandon their families and become somehow less feminine if they were granted that right. Do you agree that we should not have been given the right to vote because of someone's fear of what *might* happen?
I feel like that scene in Ghostbusters where Venkman says, "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria." In this country, I don't believe we've got a right to refuse rights to one group just because another group is liable to end up wanting right, too. I thought we'd stopped using that reasoning back in the 1800s.
marriage vs civil union
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Maine Passes Gay Marriage Law
AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”
“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said.
“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”
Why not leave marriage up to the churches
There are some churches performing marriages now and have been for years. Go to the court house and get your "union license" and then get married whereever the heck you can. My Presbyterian church has been performing weddings for gays for almost 20 years.
I am a Christian and do believe in gay marriage. Speak for yourself. sm
.
Not just drugs..."freedom" when it comes to gay marriage, also
...to think about what Barney Frank falls off of...or into...or anything else that makes me want to run my brain through an autoclave.
Marriage is supposed to be a sacred union
but unfortunately many see it as a temporary situation. Some people honestly cannot help their marriages dissolve, however, even if you throw the religion aspect out of it homosexuality doesn't even make sense in Darwin's theory. Homosexuals would naturally die out, because they aren't procreating.
I've not had children either, but just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't make a case for homosexual marriages.
Palin and McCain's Shotgun Marriage
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-and-mccains-shotgun-marriage
PA just struck down the common law marriage last year
Until then, if you stated you were married to a person, called them husband and wife, and went to a lawyer to papers made up and signed, you had the same rights as a married couple.
If you wanted to separate, you had to follow the rules of married couples and go through the courts.
Through common-law marriage, the couples were also recognized by the federal government as being married. Some states did not recognize common-law marriage, so if you wanted to move to another state, you had to be careful where you moved. You had to pick a state that recognized it.
My point being, I don't see why Civil Unions would not fall under the same rules as common-law marriages. They are the "same difference."
It's very hard to contest a will and the party who contests it is the one who must pay the legal fees (not sure if its for both parties or just the one contesting). Anyone can leave anything to anybody in a will if they are "of sound mind and judgment."
Hasn't anyone checked CA to see if they have common-law marriage?
Wrong answer--the subject is gay marriage...LOL nm
x
Question for anti-gay marriage folks...(sm)
Since you claim that marriage is only a christian right, then how about this:
What if we strip down "marriage" to what you claim is its purpose....that being a joining of a man and woman in god's eyes. Let's say that only heterosexual christians are allowed to be "married." However, lets also take away all the benefits that now come with marriage such as insurance coverage, joint taxes, hospital privileges, etc. Why? Because these are not things that are covered in the bible and have nothing to do with the "sanctity" of marriage.
Once that is done, you have "marriage" all to yourself and should not be threatened whatsoever by anyone.
Now lets say that the rest of us -- that would be those who are not heterosexual or do not believe in "marriage" in a biblical sense have "unions." Because this would be a legal status and not affiliated with any religion, we would be able to claim benefits that would come such as insurance, taxes, etc. In order for you (christians) to be able to enjoy these benefits you also would have to have "unions." As far as any other religions, the same would apply. They would be able to hold whatever ceremonies for their "marriage" for their religious beliefs, but would also have to have "unions" in order to receive legal benefits.
And luckily millions of others believe in marriage for all human kind
and not just those "select few".
Issues...I don't have issues with people with common sense. The one who know that the Creator loves all people.
I do have issues with people who are blatantly ignorant.
Quick question about the "sex" marriage thing...
So, if married MEANS you can if you want have children, what if I married a man who was NOT ABLE to have children and I knew this. Could I still marry him? Would we be considered "married" in the eyes of others since we could not have children? Or a woman unable to have children, should she be able to be married? Just a thought!
|
