Well, if we need something to bring this CONTROVERSIAL echo back to

life,

maybe my following post will do the trick.

I was just reading an article in the New York Times called "Iowa Court

Voids

Gay Marriage Ban". I must say that this development took me totally by surprise.

I wouldn't have noticed. You seem to be obsessed about a problem that is
pretty much what you want to make it.

When I was growing up the word 'effeminate', for a long while had no sexual connotative. Then queer, then fag...then 'gay' ...
frowned upon by some societies, ignored by others, thought normal by still others...

For the Iowa Supreme Court

to make such a monumental decision, which will affect so many lives,...

Probably for the better. Not knowing, but guessing that the judges were not conspiratorial evil-doers...


without

any input from regular Iowans, is forcing its will on the people.

As do stop signs. You would like to force your will on others...

Regular Iowans are not legal experts or constructionist -- or judges.
Neither are you.


Undoubtedly,

a lot of Iowans are just as shocked and angered as I am.

(Sigh) True.

The gay and lesbian
community has now driven a wedge right down the middle of America. I

have been

warning my readers of this for years.

THERE we go.


Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23

Not a chance. :-)
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

I was just reading an article in the New York Times called "Iowa

Court

Voids Gay Marriage Ban". I must say that this development took

me

totally by surprise. When I saw the article heading in my New

York

Times email, I was shocked! Maybe I am just stereotyping, but

when I

think of the state of Iowa, I think of conservative farmers and Bible-believing Christians; I certainly don't think of urban liberals!

Don't slander farmers by steretyping them as redneck Christian

fundamentalis

Religionists have the panties in a wad over this when it really has

nothing

do
with them or their beliefs. What is affected is the *civil* contract

of

marriage
between two people. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry two

people

that
the churches do not want to marry, and nobody is trying to force the

churche

to
change their definition of a religious marriage. It is only the

civil side

the
arrangement that is being affected, and since religion has no

legitimate pla

in
government it's really none of their concern.

Apparently you are NOT following what isa going on.

Count me in as a guilty party. Not very interested, hence haven't been
paying attention.


Their INTENT is

plain! And it is to FORCE ALL those performing Marriages to Marry anyone
no matter what their Church Beliefs are.

I seriously doubt that. As Ackly pointed out it NOT a church thingie...
...and how did you come to learn of 'their' 'intent'?

(Sotto voce)Is this a case of 'gay denial' we read about so often?


And they fully INTEND to SUE

Churches that do NOT comply.

I think you would have difficulty in substantiating that.

I believe in Canada they have already doen that.

Or that.

I'm here to be proven wrong.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Hello Bob and Jeff...

Quoting Bob Ackley to Jeff Snyder <=-

Replying to a message of Jeff Snyder to All:

Well, if we need something to bring this CONTROVERSIAL echo back to life, maybe my following post will do the trick.

I was just reading an article in the New York Times called "Iowa

Court

Voids Gay Marriage Ban". I must say that this development took me totally by surprise. When I saw the article heading in my New York Times email, I was shocked! Maybe I am just stereotyping, but when

I

think of the state of Iowa, I think of conservative farmers and Bible-believing Christians; I certainly don't think of urban
liberals!

I thought that also made the news up here, where the Iowa
Consitution upheld Gay marriage, or same sex couples.

Don't slander farmers by steretyping them as redneck Christian fundamentalists. Religionists have the panties in a wad over
this when it really has nothing to do with them or their beliefs. What is affected is the *civil* contract of marriage between
two people. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry two
people that the churches do not want to marry, and nobody is
trying to force the churches to change their definition of
a religious marriage. It is only the civil side of the
arrangement that is being affected, and since religion has no legitimate place in government it's really none of their concern.

Agreed. This is nothing more then a dispute, where in court, a
legal decision is taken. Happens all over the place.

I've got friends, that are same sex, and there has never been
any problems but from people who make it hard for them to live
in the area,. And they and I always hear whispers behind their
backs which is unfair and uncalled for... Yeap right here in
my area of Canada.

Just my comment, gentlemen. If not right, well then I guess
it is time to change the laws, maybe ban a few rights.

My friend up here has stopped scaring tourists...wonders if he's gay, and lonely...hard to find him a companion...I think the problem is determining
if he HAS a gender.
How ya been?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Replying to a message of JOHNJWILSON to TOM WALKER:

And they fully INTEND to SUE

Churches that do NOT comply.

I seriously doubt that's true, and if it is I seriously doubt that they could win.

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)