Bryan wrote:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/...a_***_marriage
>
> Over the next four or five years more and more folks will realize that
> same sex marriage does not in any way degrade straight marriages.

I see this taking the same path that the same-sex-marriage issue took in
California: The voters outlawed it and the state judicial system overruled
the voters on the grounds that the state constitution didn't support the
prohibition. The next step that California took is already being enacted in
Iowa, that of attempting to amend the state constitution so that marriage is
strictly defined as being between a man and a woman.

Iowa's just ten months behind, that's all.

Bob

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:50:48 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Bryan wrote:
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/...a_***_marriage
>>
>> Over the next four or five years more and more folks will realize that
>> same sex marriage does not in any way degrade straight marriages.
>
> I see this taking the same path that the same-sex-marriage issue took in
> California: The voters outlawed it and the state judicial system overruled
> the voters on the grounds that the state constitution didn't support the
> prohibition. The next step that California took is already being enacted in
> Iowa, that of attempting to amend the state constitution so that marriage is
> strictly defined as being between a man and a woman.
>
> Iowa's just ten months behind, that's all.
>
> Bob

my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution in iowa
as it is in, say, california:

Judge Robert Hanson of Polk County District Court ruled in favor of
same-sex marriage on August 30, 2007. The next morning, Hanson issued a
stay of his decision pending an appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.

On April 3, 2009, in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously
affirmed Hanson's original ruling, finding that the law banning same-sex
marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, Iowa joins Massachusetts and
Connecticut in legalising same-sex marriage. The ruling will take effect on
April 24, 2009.

As a result of Hanson's ruling, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage was proposed in the state legislature but did not pass in 2008. If
approved in 2009 or 2010, the Iowa Legislature would have to approve it
again in 2011 or 2012, after which it would placed on the ballot for final
approval by the Iowa electorate.[

The issue of a constitutional amendment is not yet decided because, Senate
Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, (D-Council Bluffs) said, the Legislature
is in its closing stretch and he doesn't want to inject the volatile issue
of *** marriage into the mix.

"On this subject it is exceedingly unlikely that anything will happen on
this subject in the Senate this year," Gronstal said. He also let it be
known that it was unlikely to be brought up for a debate in 2010 either. In
a joint press release with House Speaker Pat Murphy on April 3, Gronstal
himself has welcomed the court's decision, saying "When all is said and
done, we believe the only lasting question about todayÿs events will be why
it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating
everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common
decency. Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.¡

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa>

some have expressed surprise that *** marriage would be legalized in iowa
(of all places!) but has been noted that it should not be surprising:

Students of American history know that this decision is hardly surprising.
As the Court noted in its decision, Iowa has long been WAY out in front on
civil rights issues, often leading the rest of the country by years and
even decades.

In its very first decision in 1839, the Supreme Court of the Territory of
Iowa ´refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for
slavery¡ and held that the state ´must extend equal protection to persons
of all races and conditions.¡ In 1869, the nationÿs first female lawyer was
admitted in Iowa, decades before U.S. Supreme Court decisions that actually
upheld statesÿ rights to discriminate against women. And in 1873, 91 years
before racial discrimination in public accommodations was struck down
nationwide, Iowa justices ruled that a woman could not be prevented from
entering an all-white dining room based on the color of her skin.

<http://www.privacydigest.com/2009/04/04/iowa+continues+tradition+civil+rights+pioneer>

so, shows to go you, you never know.

your pal,
blake

blake wrote:

> my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution
> in iowa as it is in, say, california:

Correct; it's not NEARLY as easy as putting it to the voters, the way it
happened in California. The amendment effort is almost certain to fail, and
it cannot even be put to the test until 2012. Maybe once it fails, Iowans
will come to accept same-sex marriage. But even if that happens, I don't
think it will make Iowa any more attractive as a place to live. (And I say
that even though both of my parents grew up in Iowa, and most of my
relatives still live there.) But it could certainly provide an unexpected
and welcome source of revenue for the state.

Bob

On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:35:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>> my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution
>> in iowa as it is in, say, california:
>
> Correct; it's not NEARLY as easy as putting it to the voters, the way it
> happened in California. The amendment effort is almost certain to fail, and
> it cannot even be put to the test until 2012. Maybe once it fails, Iowans
> will come to accept same-sex marriage. But even if that happens, I don't
> think it will make Iowa any more attractive as a place to live. (And I say
> that even though both of my parents grew up in Iowa, and most of my
> relatives still live there.) But it could certainly provide an unexpected
> and welcome source of revenue for the state.
>
> Bob

roy edroso, at the *alicublog* site, had this to say:

The traditional rightwing press releasers are on the warpath, of course,
and Republican Iowa Congressman Steve King is terrified that the Hawkeye
State will become a "*** marriage Mecca" and replace ethanol as their
leading industry.

your pal,
blake

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> "Bob Terwilliger" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> > blake wrote:
> >
> >> my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution
> >> in iowa as it is in, say, california:
> >
> > Correct; it's not NEARLY as easy as putting it to the voters, the way
> > it happened in California. The amendment effort is almost certain to
> > fail, and it cannot even be put to the test until 2012. Maybe once it
> > fails, Iowans will come to accept same-sex marriage. But even if that
> > happens, I don't think it will make Iowa any more attractive as a
> > place to live. (And I say that even though both of my parents grew up
> > in Iowa, and most of my relatives still live there.) But it could
> > certainly provide an unexpected and welcome source of revenue for the
> > state.
>
> I'm still surprised how it went in Iowa. I figured it had about as much
> a chance in Iowa as it would in Missouri. It'll be interesting to watch
> at the very least.


IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common with
a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like Minnesota or
Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like Mizzourah...


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

On Apr 6, 5:52*pm, "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> > "Bob Terwilliger" >
> :i n rec.food.cooking
>
> > > blake wrote:
>
> > >> my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution
> > >> in iowa as it is in, say, california:
>
> > > Correct; it's not NEARLY as easy as putting it to the voters, the way
> > > it happened in California. The amendment effort is almost certain to
> > > fail, and it cannot even be put to the test until 2012. Maybe once it
> > > fails, Iowans will come to accept same-sex marriage. But even if that
> > > happens, I don't think it will make Iowa any more attractive as a
> > > place to live. (And I say that even though both of my parents grew up
> > > in Iowa, and most of my relatives still live there.) But it could
> > > certainly provide an unexpected and welcome source of revenue for the
> > > state.
>
> > I'm still surprised how it went in Iowa. *I figured it had about as much
> > a chance in Iowa as it would in Missouri. *It'll be interesting to watch
> > at the very least.
>
> IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common with
> a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like Minnesota or
> Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like Mizzourah...

This is true, and that is indeed the correct way to pronounce
Missouri.
St. Louis is a nice place to live, and I imagine that KC is okay too,
but the pretty areas of the state, the Ozarks, are hick. That's Roy
Blunt country. Funny, but his son Matt Blunt was governor, and he
didn't run for reelection. If he had, there was a Libertarian
planning on running against him. This guy's name is Chief Wana Dubie,
and his slogan was going to be "Dubie vs. Blunt '08."
He ran for state rep a few years ago in Salem, where he got 1.8% of
the vote.

Chief has a pot leaf tattooed on his forehead. I shit you not.
Here's a pic:

http://www.chiefwanadubie.com/

He's pretty good buddies with my band, and especially with an old
friend of ours who has done some recording for us.
>
> --
> Best
> Greg

--Bryan

Greg wrote:

> IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common
> with a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like
> Minnesota or Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like
> Mizzourah...

If that were the case, why wouldn't the VOTERS have been the ones approving
*** marriage, rather than the state supreme court? Sounds to me like the
state is being forced in a direction that the voters don't want to go. (But
since voters can often make stupid decisions, that's not necessarily a bad
thing.)

Bob

On Apr 6, 7:13*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Greg wrote:
> > IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common
> > with a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like
> > Minnesota or Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like
> > Mizzourah...
>
> If that were the case, why wouldn't the VOTERS have been the ones approving
> *** marriage, rather than the state supreme court? Sounds to me like the
> state is being forced in a direction that the voters don't want to go. (But
> since voters can often make stupid decisions, that's not necessarily a bad
> thing.)

The Iowa Supreme court is appointed by the governor, and they serve 8
year terms. The decision was unanimous. Courts are not supposed to
be subject to short term electoral pressures.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Justices/

They are retained by the Missouri system, where voters decide whether
to give them another term. Seven justices, and one unanimous
decision. It's only a matter of time until most folks accept that
pair bonds are a source of stability, whether opposite or same sex. I
could no more *choose* to enjoy passionately kissing another guy than
a *** guy could choose to want to swap spit with a woman. Whether you
thing that God made .em, or nature evolved 'em, or anywhere in
between, people are born with sexual drives, some of which are
specific to attraction to either males or females. Scientists have
found this stuff in brain scans. I knew when I was quite young that I
had a serious attraction toward girls. For countless generations
we've had folks who are same sex oriented. Those past times were such
that being so inclined was almost universally condemned. I'm
paraphrasing the old and valid question, :"Why would any person who
has a lick of sense CHOOSE to be a part of a persecuted minority?"

The ideal is stable families, stable communities, stable states,
stable nations and a stable world, and I can't see how stable pair
bonds between same sex couples could detract from that.
>
> Bob

--Bryan

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:35:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> > blake wrote:
> >
> >> my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution
> >> in iowa as it is in, say, california:
> >
> > Correct; it's not NEARLY as easy as putting it to the voters, the way it
> > happened in California. The amendment effort is almost certain to fail,
and
> > it cannot even be put to the test until 2012. Maybe once it fails,
Iowans
> > will come to accept same-sex marriage. But even if that happens, I don't
> > think it will make Iowa any more attractive as a place to live. (And I
say
> > that even though both of my parents grew up in Iowa, and most of my
> > relatives still live there.) But it could certainly provide an
unexpected
> > and welcome source of revenue for the state.
> >
> > Bob
>
> roy edroso, at the *alicublog* site, had this to say:
>
> The traditional rightwing press releasers are on the warpath, of course,
> and Republican Iowa Congressman Steve King is terrified that the Hawkeye
> State will become a "*** marriage Mecca" and replace ethanol as their
> leading industry.


I hear that the dour elderly het couple in the famous Grant Wood _American
Gothic_ painting will be replaced by a dour elderly ******* couple, blake...


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Greg wrote:
>
> > IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common
> > with a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like
> > Minnesota or Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like
> > Mizzourah...
>
> If that were the case, why wouldn't the VOTERS have been the ones
approving
> *** marriage, rather than the state supreme court? Sounds to me like the
> state is being forced in a direction that the voters don't want to go.
(But
> since voters can often make stupid decisions, that's not necessarily a bad
> thing.)


What's interesting is that a very goodly percentage of *** folks I know here
in Chicawgo are 'refugees' from Iowa...


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
>
> If that were the case, why wouldn't the VOTERS have been the ones
> approving
> *** marriage, rather than the state supreme court? Sounds to me like the
> state is being forced in a direction that the voters don't want to go.
> (But
> since voters can often make stupid decisions, that's not necessarily a bad
> thing.)

The state constitution is the constitution. The supreme court interprets the
meaning if it is questioned. If voters want some other interpretation they
have to vote to amend it. Does not matter what voters want today, it is
what the law says.

Bryan wrote:

>>> IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common
>>> with a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like
>>> Minnesota or Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like
>>> Mizzourah...
>>
>> If that were the case, why wouldn't the VOTERS have been the ones
>> approving *** marriage, rather than the state supreme court? Sounds to me
>> like the state is being forced in a direction that the voters don't want
>> to go. (But since voters can often make stupid decisions, that's not
>> necessarily a bad thing.)
>
> The Iowa Supreme court is appointed by the governor, and they serve 8 year
> terms. The decision was unanimous. Courts are not supposed to be subject
> to short term electoral pressures.

That misses my point. Greg expressed the opinion that Iowa is a "pretty
progressive" state. If it really *were* progressive, the voters would have
voted to allow same-sex marriage. That's all I'm saying, that the Iowa
population is not progressive. (In fact, I'd guess that there's quite a bit
of covert or passive-aggressive hostility toward homosexual people in Iowa.)

Bob

On Apr 7, 7:57*am, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
> "Gregory Morrow" >news:9_WdnZ9TGqqWGEfUnZ2dnUVZ_j :in rec.food.cooking
>
> > IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common
> > with a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like
> > Minnesota or Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like
> > Mizzourah...
>
> I've had very few dealings with Iowans. Describing Missouri as a
> "fairly" redneck state was extremely generous of you. *St. Louis and KC
> aren't so bad but the nether regions are not at all "evolved". *A couple
> of years ago I heard a woman from Jefferson County telling someone else
> you could get AIDS from mosquito bites. That myth was debunked in the
> 80s. *The problem I see in the nether regions of Missouri is that the
> people are unable, or unwilling, to educate themselves. *They go to
> church, do what the pastor says, go home and create some violent domestic
> situations and hate every minority they come across. *Of course, that's
> just my impression. Oh, and let us not forget blowing themselves up with
> the meth labs they have in the trunk of the car. *Missouri free
> enterprise at it's finest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/...rriage_vermont

The legislature overrode the GOP governor's veto.
>
> Michael

--Bryan

In article >,
says...
>
> "Gregory Morrow" >
> m: in rec.food.cooking
>
> > IME Iowa is a pretty progressive state, Michael, it has more in common
> > with a relatively liberal "live and let live" northern state like
> > Minnesota or Wisconsin than it does with a fairly redneck state like
> > Mizzourah...
>
> I've had very few dealings with Iowans. Describing Missouri as a
> "fairly" redneck state was extremely generous of you. St. Louis and KC
> aren't so bad but the nether regions are not at all "evolved". A couple
> of years ago I heard a woman from Jefferson County telling someone else
> you could get AIDS from mosquito bites. That myth was debunked in the
> 80s. The problem I see in the nether regions of Missouri is that the
> people are unable, or unwilling, to educate themselves. They go to
> church, do what the pastor says, go home and create some violent domestic
> situations and hate every minority they come across. Of course, that's
> just my impression. Oh, and let us not forget blowing themselves up with
> the meth labs they have in the trunk of the car. Missouri free
> enterprise at it's finest.
>
> Michael

Same thing in parts of NC and FL. It's the churches.

The meth lab thing is interesting. It require anyhdrous ammonia which is
used as a fertilizer in farming communities.

In article >,
says...
>
> Bobo Bonobo® >
> :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/...rriage_vermont
> >
> > The legislature overrode the GOP governor's veto.
>
> That's pretty much the way I figured it would go in Vermont. Unless same
> sex marriage is made on a federal level I doubt we'll see it in Missouri
> anytime soon.
>
> Michael

I give it five years. Once New England is locked up someone will move
from this region to another and then balk when their relationship isn't
recognized.

On Apr 7, 7:50*pm, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
>
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/...rriage_vermont
>
> > The legislature overrode the GOP governor's veto.
>
> That's pretty much the way I figured it would go in Vermont. Unless same
> sex marriage is made on a federal level I doubt we'll see it in Missouri
> anytime soon.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Impeached former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on the Don and Roma Morning
> radio talk show:
>
> "I'm going to trust in the truth and as it says in the Bible, the truth
> shall set you free".
>
> You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

I think you're right, Michael. I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. The
court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
Lynn in Fargo

On Apr 6, 11:11*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:35:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> > blake wrote:
>
> >> my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution
> >> in iowa as it is in, say, california:
>
> > Correct; it's not NEARLY as easy as putting it to the voters, the way it
> > happened in California. The amendment effort is almost certain to fail, and
> > it cannot even be put to the test until 2012. Maybe once it fails, Iowans
> > will come to accept same-sex marriage. But even if that happens, I don't
> > think it will make Iowa any more attractive as a place to live. (And I say
> > that even though both of my parents grew up in Iowa, and most of my
> > relatives still live there.) But it could certainly provide an unexpected
> > and welcome source of revenue for the state.
>
> > Bob
>
> roy edroso, at the *alicublog* site, had this to say:
>
> The traditional rightwing press releasers are on the warpath, of course,
> and Republican Iowa Congressman Steve King is terrified that the Hawkeye
> State will become a "*** marriage Mecca" and replace ethanol as their
> leading industry. *

Maybe, but Vermont is beautiful in June. Heck, Vermont is beautiful
most of the time.
I imagine that the Newhartesque Inns are going to have some good
years.
>
> your pal,
> blake

--Bryan

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig
wrote:

> On Apr 7, 7:50*pm, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>> Bobo Bonobo® :
>> in rec.food.cooking
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/...rriage_vermont
>>
>>> The legislature overrode the GOP governor's veto.
>>
>> That's pretty much the way I figured it would go in Vermont. Unless same
>> sex marriage is made on a federal level I doubt we'll see it in Missouri
>> anytime soon.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
> I think you're right, Michael. I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
> Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. The
> court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
> basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
> Lynn in Fargo

i definitely wouldn't count on the current supreme court to help out at
all.

your pal,
fat tony

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> T >
> . org: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > Same thing in parts of NC and FL. It's the churches.
>
> Yep. They can't seem to understand the division of church and state.
>
> >
> > The meth lab thing is interesting. It require anyhdrous ammonia which
> > is used as a fertilizer in farming communities.
>
> Which is readily available here in Missouri. Many of the urban areas of
> Missouri are impoverished and are rich in farmland/farms. It's a
> "booming" business here in Missouri.


It is amazing...

I know people in law enforcement in central Illannoy, around where I grew
up, and the meth problem is ENDEMIC. Every week in the crime blotter
sections of the local podunk noozepapers there is news of meth busts,
sometimes whole families and even with the little kids involved. These
areas are seriously and chronically economically depressed, so it's a
"career" avenue for many...


--
Best
Greg

On Thu 09 Apr 2009 08:13:58a, Michael "Dog3" told us...

> Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig >
> :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> I think you're right, Michael. I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
>> Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. The
>> court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
>> basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
>> Lynn in Fargo
>
> I vaguely remember the hoopla surrounding it. Missouri is just barely a
> step above Arkansas on the state level. Kentucky is as bad as Arkansas.
> It'll require some type of Federal legislation to bring some of the
> states in line with the others. Who really knows though? Some of the
> states have yet to realize the US is a republic, and not a theocracy.
>
> Michael
>

Some have yet to realize that there is no longer a Confederacy.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"Recipe: A series of step-by-step instructions for preparing ingredients
you forgot to buy, in utensils you don't own, to make a dish the dog
wouldn't eat." ~Author Unknown

In article >,
says...
>
> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> > T >
> > . org: in
> > rec.food.cooking
> >
> > >
> > > Same thing in parts of NC and FL. It's the churches.
> >
> > Yep. They can't seem to understand the division of church and state.
> >
> > >
> > > The meth lab thing is interesting. It require anyhdrous ammonia which
> > > is used as a fertilizer in farming communities.
> >
> > Which is readily available here in Missouri. Many of the urban areas of
> > Missouri are impoverished and are rich in farmland/farms. It's a
> > "booming" business here in Missouri.
>
>
> It is amazing...
>
> I know people in law enforcement in central Illannoy, around where I grew
> up, and the meth problem is ENDEMIC. Every week in the crime blotter
> sections of the local podunk noozepapers there is news of meth busts,
> sometimes whole families and even with the little kids involved. These
> areas are seriously and chronically economically depressed, so it's a
> "career" avenue for many...

I recall going to a SEARCH conference in late 2001 and talking to police
officials from that area. They were telling me about the surge in meth
production then.

On 09 Apr 2009 15:13:58 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig >
> :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> I think you're right, Michael. I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
>> Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. The
>> court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
>> basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
>> Lynn in Fargo
>
> I vaguely remember the hoopla surrounding it. Missouri is just barely a
> step above Arkansas on the state level. Kentucky is as bad as Arkansas.
> It'll require some type of Federal legislation to bring some of the
> states in line with the others. Who really knows though? Some of the
> states have yet to realize the US is a republic, and not a theocracy.
>
> Michael

what were the various state laws at the time of loving v. virginia (when
laws banning interracial marriage were struck down)? i could see a similar
path (if it were not for some mossbacks on the court like scalia, thomas,
and alito, damn their black, flabby hearts).

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On 09 Apr 2009 15:13:58 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> > Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig >
> > :
> > in rec.food.cooking
> >
> >>
> >> I think you're right, Michael. I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
> >> Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. The
> >> court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
> >> basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
> >> Lynn in Fargo
> >
> > I vaguely remember the hoopla surrounding it. Missouri is just barely a
> > step above Arkansas on the state level. Kentucky is as bad as Arkansas.
> > It'll require some type of Federal legislation to bring some of the
> > states in line with the others. Who really knows though? Some of the
> > states have yet to realize the US is a republic, and not a theocracy.
> >
> > Michael
>
> what were the various state laws at the time of loving v. virginia (when
> laws banning interracial marriage were struck down)? i could see a
similar
> path (if it were not for some mossbacks on the court like scalia, thomas,
> and alito, damn their black, flabby hearts).


There was an Op-Ed in yesterday's _New York Times_ by a bi-racial guy, his
mother was white and his father was black, both from Nebraska. They had to
go to Iowa to get married in 1958, Nebraska had a miscenegation law on the
books until 1963...Iowa apparently never had any such law.


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

On Apr 10, 5:17*pm, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
> > On 09 Apr 2009 15:13:58 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> > > Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig >
> > :
> > > in rec.food.cooking
>
> > >> *I think you're right, Michael. *I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
> > >> Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. *The
> > >> court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
> > >> basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
> > >> Lynn in Fargo
>
> > > I vaguely remember the hoopla surrounding it. *Missouri is just barely a
> > > step above Arkansas on the state level. Kentucky is as bad as Arkansas.
> > > It'll require some type of Federal legislation to bring some of the
> > > states in line with the others. *Who really knows though? *Some of the
> > > states have yet to realize the US is a republic, and not a theocracy.
>
> > > Michael
>
> > what were the various state laws at *the time of loving v. virginia (when
> > laws banning interracial marriage were struck down)? *i could see a
> similar
> > path (if it were not for some mossbacks on the court like scalia, thomas,
> > and alito, damn their black, flabby hearts).
>
> There was an Op-Ed in yesterday's _New York Times_ by a bi-racial guy, his
> mother was white and his father was black, both from Nebraska. *They had to
> go to Iowa to get married in 1958, Nebraska had a miscenegation law on the
> books until 1963...Iowa apparently never had any such law.
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>
> "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
> people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

I think it is not equalizing marriage, but redefining marriage. A
marriage between a black and a white is still man + woman. Now it is
"*** marriage" which I guess is the term we'll use to define a
marriage that is not between a man + woman. Anyway I am sooo glad
that it's the states that decide. These are issues that need to be
addressed state level. I love people and I especially love happy
people. I do have views, and I am thoughtful and considerate of
others and have served in the military along with some in my family
who have died serving. I may not agree with you, but I have
sacrificed for you to have the freedom to express your view, and hope
that there are others that see the need or calling to protect your
future ability as well.

On Apr 10, 7:18*pm, suzireb > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:17*pm, "Gregory Morrow"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > blake murphy wrote:
> > > On 09 Apr 2009 15:13:58 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> > > > Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig >
> > > :
> > > > in rec.food.cooking
>
> > > >> *I think you're right, Michael. *I remember Casey vs ?? (US Supreme
> > > >> Court case further restricting Roe v. Wade) in the late 80s. *The
> > > >> court left standing the first section of Missouri's law which
> > > >> basically granted "personhood" and citizenship to embryos.
> > > >> Lynn in Fargo
>
> > > > I vaguely remember the hoopla surrounding it. *Missouri is just barely a
> > > > step above Arkansas on the state level. Kentucky is as bad as Arkansas.
> > > > It'll require some type of Federal legislation to bring some of the
> > > > states in line with the others. *Who really knows though? *Some of the
> > > > states have yet to realize the US is a republic, and not a theocracy.
>
> > > > Michael
>
> > > what were the various state laws at *the time of loving v. virginia (when
> > > laws banning interracial marriage were struck down)? *i could see a
> > similar
> > > path (if it were not for some mossbacks on the court like scalia, thomas,
> > > and alito, damn their black, flabby hearts).
>
> > There was an Op-Ed in yesterday's _New York Times_ by a bi-racial guy, his
> > mother was white and his father was black, both from Nebraska. *They had to
> > go to Iowa to get married in 1958, Nebraska had a miscenegation law on the
> > books until 1963...Iowa apparently never had any such law.
>
> > --
> > Best
> > Greg
>
> > "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
> > people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher
>
> I think it is not equalizing marriage, but redefining marriage. *A
> marriage between a black and a white is still man + woman. *Now it is
> "*** marriage" which I guess is the term we'll use to define a
> marriage that is not between a man + woman. *Anyway I am sooo glad
> that it's the states that decide. *These are issues that need to be
> addressed state level. *I love people and I especially love happy
> people. *I do have views, and I am thoughtful and considerate of
> others and have served in the military along with some in my family
> who have died serving. *I may not agree with you, but I have
> sacrificed for you to have the freedom to express your view, and hope
> that there are others that see the need or calling to protect your
> future ability as well.

How come it was OK for Abraham (and a bunch of the others who were
God's favorites) to have multiple wives, but now it's one man, one
woman? I assume you're of an Abrahamic faith, right? Most anti-***
marriage folks self identify as Christian.

Now, I'm not a big fan of the Mormons, or other polygamous cultures,
but this is factually as well as I could have put it myself:
"We believe that the idea of multiple sexual partners is in no way
prohibited by the teachings of the Hebrew or Christian scriptures.

The ancient Hebrews, as portrayed in the Old Testament, clearly
believed in multiple partnerships and this practice is nowhere
condemned by God.

When the New Testament scriptures are viewed as a whole, taking
into account the cultural context in which they were written, it is
clear that neither Jesus nor the writers of the New Testament
condemned such practice, although it appears that polygamy had, for
non-religious reasons, substantially declined within Jewish culture by
the time of Christ."
source-- http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR324.htm

Can you show me where in the Bible it forbids plural marriage? You
can't. Yet you probably find the idea abhorrent, right? The Bible--
and indeed Christ himself--condemns no-fault divorce, which is a far
greater threat to my and your traditional marriage than is giving
equal legal status to same sex couples. Why not prioritize that? Are
you just going for low hanging fruit? Why gays?

I honor your military service, but you should realize that many LGBTs
have also served with honor.

The Bible also endorses slavery:
http://bible.cc/colossians/3-22.htm

Will you advocate for slavery?

Should a brother be directed to have intercourse with his dead
brother's widow, as it says in Gen 38? Where in the New Testament was
that revoked?

As rfc's self proclaimed Biblical scholar, I challenge you to debate
me in a very civil argument. I will not personally attack you, but
show me how your beliefs and knowledge of Scripture qualify you to
pronounce *** unions more un-Christian than the above practices.

I would not try to undermine your belief in Christ as your personal
savior. Many folks who I love and respect are sincere God loving
Christians, and I have had to overcome my own prejudices, and indeed,
bigotries. Like Saul of Tarsus, I myself was pretty nasty toward
Christians--and folks on this NG know how nasty I can be--but I now
embrace people of faith who have also come to accept that history has
moved beyond strict Biblical fundamentalism, and who have allied
themselves with other faith and non-faith believers in social justice.

A few weeks ago, I saw that our local Humanist fellowship gave its
service award to a Christian organization that serves the *least of
these*, and I was emotionally moved. If you do love people, and want
them to be happy, please realize that folks who are attracted to same
sex partners only want the happiness that I have in my own marriage,
and perhaps yours, though you didn't say whether you are married.

Think about what I wrote, and if you can't refute my positions, maybe
you will just close your mind, or maybe you will show me the errors in
my reasoning. More than likely you will not engage me. I'm humble
enough to give you a chance to prove me wrong. Are you similarly
humble?

I await your response.

--Bryan

In article
>,
Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

> On Apr 10, 7:18*pm, suzireb > wrote:

> > I think it is not equalizing marriage, but redefining marriage. *A
> > marriage between a black and a white is still man + woman. *Now it is
> > "*** marriage" which I guess is the term we'll use to define a
> > marriage that is not between a man + woman. *Anyway I am sooo glad
> > that it's the states that decide. *These are issues that need to be
> > addressed state level. *I love people and I especially love happy
> > people. *I do have views, and I am thoughtful and considerate of
> > others and have served in the military along with some in my family
> > who have died serving. *I may not agree with you, but I have
> > sacrificed for you to have the freedom to express your view, and hope
> > that there are others that see the need or calling to protect your
> > future ability as well.

I didn't see anything in suzireb's post above that discussed religion,
so I won't comment on the post.

> How come it was OK for Abraham (and a bunch of the others who were
> God's favorites) to have multiple wives, but now it's one man, one
> woman? I assume you're of an Abrahamic faith, right? Most anti-***
> marriage folks self identify as Christian.
>
> Now, I'm not a big fan of the Mormons, or other polygamous cultures,
> but this is factually as well as I could have put it myself:
> "We believe that the idea of multiple sexual partners is in no way
> prohibited by the teachings of the Hebrew or Christian scriptures.

At one point it was pretty common for Catholic priests to have more than
one wife, as many as he could afford.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

On Apr 10, 10:59*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 7:18*pm, suzireb > wrote:
> > > I think it is not equalizing marriage, but redefining marriage. *A
> > > marriage between a black and a white is still man + woman. *Now it is
> > > "*** marriage" which I guess is the term we'll use to define a
> > > marriage that is not between a man + woman. *Anyway I am sooo glad
> > > that it's the states that decide. *These are issues that need to be
> > > addressed state level. *I love people and I especially love happy
> > > people. *I do have views, and I am thoughtful and considerate of
> > > others and have served in the military along with some in my family
> > > who have died serving. *I may not agree with you, but I have
> > > sacrificed for you to have the freedom to express your view, and hope
> > > that there are others that see the need or calling to protect your
> > > future ability as well.
>
> I didn't see anything in suzireb's post above that discussed religion,
> so I won't comment on the post.

I didn't either, but you can bet that it's religion that's behind it
all. Maybe she'll respond and, like Peter, deny Jesus. On Easter
weekend no less. Somehow I doubt that.
>
> > How come it was OK for Abraham (and a bunch of the others who were
> > God's favorites) to have multiple wives, but now it's one man, one
> > woman? *I assume you're of an Abrahamic faith, right? *Most anti-***
> > marriage folks self identify as Christian.
>
> > Now, I'm not a big fan of the Mormons, or other polygamous cultures,
> > but this is factually as well as I could have put it myself:
> > "We believe that the idea of multiple sexual partners is in no way
> > prohibited by the teachings of the Hebrew or Christian scriptures.
>
> At one point it was pretty common for Catholic priests to have more than
> one wife, as many as he could afford.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA

--Bryan
The album, "School of the Americas" is now available online.
Go to: http://www.thebonobos.com/
Click on the album cover to purchase. This is a fold out case with a
lyrics booklet for only $9.99. That's right folks, only $9.99.