About Us

RHF

wrote:
On Nov 5, 5:20 pm, RHF wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:12 am, "Bob Campbell" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Nov 5, 7:41 am, 527_blue_collar_****** wrote:
wrote:
You lost, get over it.
Not so far. As of Wednesday morning, he won. At this time, 52% of
the votes (from 95% of the precincts) are YES votes, meaning that so
far, the voters agree that marriage MUST BE between a man and a woman.
- Yeah, at least voters haven't totally lost
- their minds. The man/woman marriage amendment
- passed in Florida, Arizona AND California.

GA,

Will that still means that there are 47 States
where basic 'human rights' are almost equal
"Human Rights" for all their Citizens.

The Citizens {Voters} of Arizona, California
and Florida are just plain Mean Spirited.

Let us clarify this Traditional Marriage Concept
is narrowly Defined by Law in those States as a
Legal Civil Union between One Man and One Women.

All the great wonderful 'liberal' people who
are for so-called Gay {Lesbian} Marriage are
some how 'silent' on Equal Rights for those
who's Religious Beliefs allow them to practice
Polygamy {One Man with More-Than One Wife}
like some Mormons and some Muslims.

Basic Human Rights -versus- Basic Religious Freedom :
As long as there is an Equal Right of Religious
Groups to follow their Religion Traditions and
Practices; and can not be required to Preform
"Gay" Marriages as a Matter of Law; and have
their Charitable Status and Tax Exemption
Challenged as a matter of Law : When so-called
"Gay" Marriage between Consenting Adults should
NOT be Prohibited. But then at the same time the
Religious practice of Polygamy Marriage must also
be allowed to exist between Consenting Adults :
In All Fairness and Equality as Both a Legal
Personal and Individual Religious 'Choice' :
That is 'if' we Truly have Religious Freedom
and True Separation of Church and State.

If You Can Say "Yes" to Gay Marriage : You
Clearly Must Be Ready, Willing and Able to
Say yes, Yes. YES ! to Polygamy Marriage.

-IF- NOT... Is the Issue Really About Basic
Human Rights For Each-and-Every Citizen : Or
Just Equal Rights For The 'Select' Few Chosen
Ones the Liberals Deemed To Be "Worthy" of
Human Rights and Equality Before the Law.

true equality for all of god's children
and injustice and indifference for none ~ RHF
.

There ARE equal rights for all in California. ALL men have a right to
marry a woman. ALL women have a right to marry a man. NO man has a
right to marry another man. NO woman has a right to marry another
woman. Where is this not equal rights? The rights are the same for
everyone.

Men and women do not have the same rights to begin with, and they
shouldn't. A girl should not have a right to join the boys scouts. A
boy should not have a right to join the girl scouts.

When will these rediuclous arguments stop!

Children do not have the same rights as adults. A bike rider does not
have the same rights as a licensed driver. A blind person does not
have the same rights to drive a car as a person with good vision.

Come on now. We could go on and on and on with this.

The institution of marriage has been between a man and woman since the
beginning of time. It is wrong to force a chiristian pastor to marry
two men or two women together when it goes against their own beliefs.

- This whole topic has nothing to do with civil rights or equal rights.

BpnJ,

And there is the foundation of our disagreement to me the whole topic
comes down to "Civil Rights" -aka- "Equal Rights" and "Religious Rights"
-aka- Religious Freedom : All In-Balance and All Equal : Meaning NO
Religious Individual or Group would be FORCE-BY-LAW to Marry any
Individuals that as a Matter of Religion is against the Traditions and
Tenets of their Beliefs/Faith. Including those who 'practice' Polygamy
Marriage.

EXAMPLES :
* A Born-Again-Christian Couple could not Force-by-Law a Jewish Rabbi to
Marry Them.
* A Mixed-Race Couple could not Force-by-Law a White-Aryan Church Leader
to Marry Them.
* A Jewish Couple could not Force-by-Law a Catholic Priest to Marry Them.
* A Same-Gender Couple could not Force-by-Law any Church to Marry Them.
* A Buddhist Couple could not Force-by-Law a Muslim Imam to Marry Them.
* A Muslim Couple could not Force-by-Law a Christian Pastor to Marry Them.
* A Polygamy Multi-Couple could not Force-by-Law a Protestant Pastor to
Marry Them.
*
HOWEVER -if- a Same-Gender Couple is Married in a Unitarian Universalist
Church by a Pastor who want to Marry Them : SO BE IT [.]
AND -if- a Same-Gender Couple is Married in a Civil Ceremony by a County
Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Ordained Minister, ETC : THEN SO BE IT [.]
PLUS -if- a Polygamy Multi-Couple is Married in a Church/Mosque that
allows and practices Polygamy as a matter of Their Faith : Then They Are
All Jointly Married Legally Under-the-Law : SO BE IT TOO [.]

It About Equality Before The Law -coupled-with- Freedom of Religion ~RHF

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mike States' arrant behavior needs corrective action. Why will eBay take no action?	Bret Ludwig	Boatanchors	2	May 19th 07 06:18 PM
Stevie Claims "action" more like missing in action most likely	an_old_friend	Policy	106	August 29th 05 01:48 AM
PING:::Geo, the answer is AFFIRMATIVE	Citizens For A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup	CB	11	November 22nd 03 01:19 AM

Menu

About Us