Vice President Cheneys daughter is a lesbian

Published on October 13, 2004 By d3adz0mbie In International

Just in case you missed John Kerry bringing that up over and over and over, as if it was an issue. Hopefully this blog entry will help everyone know this important fact, because Kerry WONT STOP BRINGING IT UP.

Comments (Page 4)

drmiler

on Oct 14, 2004

Reply #45 By: d3adz0mbie - 10/14/2004 7:28:11 PM
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

This is a perfect example of why lawyers will be the first to to be shot (and that includes Congress) when the revolution comes. I see how this could be read that NOBODY will ever have the same privileges as a married couple. The truth is that if a Civil Union for any couple was enacted into law, it would acquire its own set of priviledges and legal incidents specific to its legal status. These priviledges and legal incidents could be equal or identical to those conferred upon the marriage status, but will never acquire those rights as married.

Maybe this analogy will help: Under law, a man cannot legally be a woman and a woman cannot be a man. While we strive for equality for both sexes, the truth is the two are legally seperate definitions. A man cannot have rights as a woman, and a woman cannot have rights AS A MAN. But they can both have the same rights.

Sorry if Im drawing this out... A civil union could confer the legal right upon two men to be recognised as inheritors of property under the laws that govern civil unions. They could not acquire this same right under the laws that govern marriage. Vise versa, a man and a woman married would become inheritors of one anothers property through the laws that govern marriage, not the laws that govern civil union.

Are we all confused yet?

The bottom line is that this does not EXCLUDE, but does not confer or address other similar potential legal definitions of relationships. Instead of fighting over this, the fight should be for the creation of civil unions, seperate but equal to marriage (but legally governing within its own rights). Now excuse me while I go find a gun, Ive got some lawyers to talk to...

Wait for me! I wanna go too! Can I bring the ammo?

Dr Guy

on Oct 15, 2004

To d3adz0mbie, I am very sorry and I did not mean to overgeneralize everyone in the south as being an idiot. However, from my own personal experience, many of the Southern Baptists I've met still refer to African Americans as niggers and are vastly homophobic. When asked why they hate them, they respond "Well that's the way the good Lord intended."

Yea, and it was them southern baptist in boston that rioted to stop bussing.

Your gneralizations are bigotted. I would say racist, but you did qualify a subset of a race instead of an entire race. So you are just a bigot.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!