The city of Berkeley can charge marina fees to youth sailors connected with the Boy Scouts of America in response to the Scouts' discriminatory policies, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court unanimously rejected claims by the Berkeley Sea Scouts that the city violated the group's free speech and freedom of association rights by charging it berthing fees, which nonprofit groups that comply with a 1997 nondiscrimination law do not pay.

The city revoked the group's subsidies in 1998 because the Boy Scouts bar atheist and gay members. It's one of several cases in which federal, state and local governments have distanced themselves from the Scouts.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts' membership policies are legal, but the state high court ruled that governments remain able to deny benefits to organizations that discriminate.

"What the California Supreme Court said was that private clubs can discriminate, but the taxpayers don't have to fund that discrimination," Berkeley City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque said.

Scouts spokesman Bob Bork called the ruling "another in a continuing legal backlash against the Boy Scouts for asserting and winning its constitutional rights in the United States Supreme Court."

The Sea Scouts are a branch of the Boy Scouts that teaches sailing, carpentry and plumbing. City officials had told the group that it could retain its berthing subsidy if it broke ties with the Boy Scouts or disavowed the policy against gays and atheists, but the Sea Scouts refused.

The Sea Scouts pay $500 a month to berth one boat at the Berkeley Marina; the group removed two other boats because it could not afford the rent. The group has about 40 members, down from as many as 100 before the subsidy was removed.

Never fear, blonde one, there's plenty of support still out there...

When I land a job, which won't be too long from now, I plan to support the BSA financially and professionally (as a metal craft merit badge/CPR instructor/anything else they can use) faithfully.

I've had it with the intrusions attempted by this ultra-liberal generation.

When I land a job, which won't be too long from now, I plan to support the BSA financially and professionally (as a metal craft merit badge/CPR instructor/anything else they can use) faithfully.

Our culture is being eroded

btw.. i have nothing against folks who are religious... just those people who use it to discriminate.

btw.. i have nothing against folks who are religious... just those people who use it to discriminate.

not sure how me bouldering at the gunks is white trash but :shrug:

it just really irks me how much PTC trashes gays and lesbians.. if he were coming out here and firing out racial slurs and saying we should go back to slavery more people would see the problem with it. I don't see a difference. How about if he was saying that all Jews should be wiped from the earth? How about aparheid.. that was fun times wasnt it? i'm sure PTC had no problems with oppressing a whole race in S. africa

So.. twisting bible verses to discriminate and take away rights of men and women
vs
Islamic extremists twisting the Koran to justify making war with people they dont like.

if you condone one then you can't fault it when it doesn't work out in your favor

it just really irks me how much PTC trashes gays and lesbians....

It seems like most religions preach hate, so why bother with them?

please name these religions and the specific "hate" they preach.

Deuteronomy 2: 33-36 the Lord our God delivered him into our hands; we killed him with his sons and all his people. We captured all his cities at that time and put to death everyone in the cities, men, women, and dependants; we left no survivor. We took the cattle as booty and plundered the cities we captured.

Deuteronomy 7: 1-2 When the lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to occupy and drives out many nations before you- Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you- when the Lord your God delivers them into your power and you defeat them, you must put them to death. You must not make a treaty with them or spare them.

Deuteronomy 13: 1-5 When a prophet or dreamer appears among you and offers you a sign or a portent and calls on you to follow other gods... That prophet or dreamer shall be put to death

Deuteronomy 17: 12-13 Anyone who presumes to reject the decision either of the priest who ministers there to the Lord your God, or of the judge, shall die; thus you will rid Israel of wickedness.

THanks, styndall, i heart you!

My favorite bits of violence, murder, rape, hate, and slavery come from the Deuteronomy. I'm sure you'll agree.


And this just with a quick look.

You ever consider that mebbe he's just baiting people and getting a rise outta them?

(Not that I'm sticking up for anyone, nor do I condone any specific behavior, nor should you consider this to be a contract, either expressed or implied.... blah, blah, blah, lawyer speak disclaimer...)

Likewise, many mainstream denominations recommend the "Left Behind" books for their followers, and those, besides being atrocious prose distinctly unworthy of their status as best sellers, are a sort of hateful pornography of self-righteousness, glorying in the death and destruction of millions, so long as those millions are the wrong kinds of people (athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, people who maintain their lawns outside of the specification of their homeowners associations, etc). Yet there is no outrage about this in mainstream Christianity. These people are selling you smug self-righteousness, morally-acceptabe hate, and the religious joy of genocide, and somehow the Christian mainstream eats it with a spoon and begs for more.

Where do you get this stuff?

Where do you get this stuff?

Likewise, many mainstream denominations recommend the "Left Behind" books for their followers

, and those, besides being atrocious prose distinctly unworthy of their status as best sellers, are a sort of hateful pornography of self-righteousness, glorying in the death and destruction of millions, so long as those millions are the wrong kinds of people (athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, people who maintain their lawns outside of the specification of their homeowners associations, etc). Yet there is no outrage about this in mainstream Christianity. These people are selling you smug self-righteousness, morally-acceptabe hate, and the religious joy of genocide, and somehow the Christian mainstream eats it with a spoon and begs for more.

Another fine example of intolerance - in the name of tolerance.

Can someone show me where BSA prohibits gay or atheist boys from participating in their programs?

Au contraire, the BSA crying intolerance in instigating this futile lawsuit (instead of using the $$ to fund more activities, maybe??) is more like the intolerant crying intolerance against those acting on behalf of tolerance... something clear like that.

My friend was a highly touted eagle scout and was planning on being a scout leader and volunteering as much of his time as possible to give back to the BSA. He was apparently seen marching in a Pride parade on TV; the next day the organization cut off all contact with him. Unfortunately, it's not an isolated story, and it's not as though the BSA has a 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy...

The liberalization of America aint no myth, babe. Our culture is being eroded by it on an epic scale. Maybe you don't notice it yourself because of...what is the term...over saturation?

I will remain persistent...but you already knew that, didn't you? :wink:

Where do you get this stuff?


It's pretty pathetic when people who otherwise seem pretty intelligent, resort to using extreme caricatures of fringe groups to make general condemnations of Christians in this country.

The hugely successful Left Behind books, with their apocalyptic evangelical Christian vision, are the all-time bestselling Christian fiction series. Six books in the series debuted at the number-one position on the bestseller lists for the New York Times, USA Today, Publishers Weekly, and The Wall Street Journal. More than 62 million copies have been sold.

Oooo. A non-specific anecdote to further your bigotry. How quaint.

I said I'd support the BSA if they were anything today like the organization they were before becoming overrun by religious zealots as a means of polarizing the organization due to charged political motives.

Thorne, dude, The scouts have a systematic policy of excluding gays: "Findings of Fact..., R.D. Pool & M.S. Geller vs. Boy Scouts of America..." Commission on Human Rights, Government of the District of Columbia, 1998-MAY-1

even YOU could have googled that.. ;-)

Except the Left Behind thing is not an extreme fringe at all. This is no minor phenomenon, no tiny fringe group of nutjobs, no Fred Phelps. One of these books was the best-selling novel of 2001

[quote="Amazon.com"]The hugely successful Left Behind books, with their apocalyptic evangelical Christian vision, are the all-time bestselling Christian fiction series. Six books in the series debuted at the number-one position on the bestseller lists for the New York Times, USA Today, Publishers Weekly, and The Wall Street Journal.

More than 62 million copies have been sold.

I see. The treatment of two individuals proves a "systematic policy" for a national organization. :shock: How'd that case play out?

Where'd you get this information? Amazon ranks the 1st book below 2000th in sales. Only one of these books makes Amazons top ten in Christian Fiction... and it comes in at #10.

don't be lazy, do your OWN google.

Amazons Ten Year Anniversary Author Hall of Fame

Note that the Left Behind authors are number 9.

I just wanted to see if you'd post that, in the end, the BSA won.

Of course this has nothing to do with widely (and falsely) held belief that the BSA prohibits gay or atheist boys from participating in their programs.

In that case, please enlighten us as to what the policy actually is, should you have the capacity to utilize search engines.

I just wanted to see if you'd post that, in the end, the BSA won.

Of course this has nothing to do with widely (and falsely) held belief that the BSA prohibits gay or atheist boys from participating in their programs.

Which book was "the best-selling novel of 2001"?

The BSA is essentially no different than the organization your" family used to support". It's just been forced to make some unpleasant decisions.

Considering that the BSA wasn't even formed yet when you were growing up, I question your insight regarding the notion that the BSA was 'forced' to make said unpleasant decisions.

Considering that the BSA wasn't even formed yet when you were growing up, I question your insight regarding the notion that the BSA was 'forced' to make said unpleasant decisions.

Uh, not to pick sides, but the BSA was founded in 1910.

Thorne may be old, but he ain't THAT old.

I wasn't around when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, either.

I don't have time or patience for your s--- this morning. I don't name names of people I know personally when relating stories about them that are pertinent to the present situation. If you want to live your life with blinders on, that's fine by me.

I don't get upset at being called names or derogatory words in regards to anything having to do with my personal appearance, but it really pisses me off when someone, completely unprovoked, calls me a bigot, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't sting more coming from you. Because I know some bigots and their ideologies; they're on the side of the family that I don't talk to anymore. And if you had any inclination to read anything beyond your usual bait-material and ideological correlatives, you'd see that in my second post on this topic, I said I'd support the BSA if they were anything today like the organization they were before becoming overrun by religious zealots as a means of polarizing the organization due to charged political motives. Before anyone ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act, the BSA had no policy in effect that could be described as discriminatory. Since that's changed, I consider it detrimental to the interests of all boys and girls involved in the organization, because the primary focus is no longer on them.

In looking for info on these books, I found some interesting stuff on the publisher's (or writers') website - The Day of Reconning is June 6, 2006 (6/6/6).

You better get right with the Lord before it's too late!!!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:

I wasn't around when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, either.

Was this sarcasm, too?

Was this sarcasm, too?

The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Wow care to cite that?

My friend was a highly touted eagle scout and was planning on being a scout leader and volunteering as much of his time as possible to give back to the BSA. He was apparently seen marching in a Pride parade on TV; the next day the organization cut off all contact with him.

Don't tell me you never saw "Animal House"....

I actually haven't but I might go pick it up now...

D-Day (Bruce McGill): War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Otter (Tim Matheson): [whispering] Germans?

Boon (Peter Riegert): Forget it, he's rolling.

BTW, the results of that particular case didn't absolve the BSA of discrimination, in fact, it said that they did dioscriminate, and could becasue of their status as a private club. so it really doesn't go a long way towards supporting your assertion that they don't exclude kids based on sexual orientation.

reading thru the findings, it seemed to me that, as long as the scout makes no mention of sexual orientation, he or she is good to go. once outed though, it's the old frye boot for you, Brucey-woocey! Or, Brucella.

Lots of Christians disavow many of the rules of the old testament, while cheerfully keeping with the ones that confirm their prejudices. Note the anti-gay passages in the old testament and the adherance to that passage of many (especially evangelical) branches, while these people think nothing of eating shrimp or catfish, and certainly don't mind wearing fabrics of mixed materials.

Likewise, many mainstream denominations recommend the "Left Behind" books for their followers, and those, besides being atrocious prose distinctly unworthy of their status as best sellers, are a sort of hateful pornography of self-righteousness, glorying in the death and destruction of millions, so long as those millions are the wrong kinds of people (athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, people who maintain their lawns outside of the specification of their homeowners associations, etc). Yet there is no outrage about this in mainstream Christianity. These people are selling you smug self-righteousness, morally-acceptabe hate, and the religious joy of genocide, and somehow the Christian mainstream eats it with a spoon and begs for more.

If Jesus, by some miracle actually returned, you'd just nail him right back up again.

Islam is no more natively hateful than Christianity or Buddhism. In modern Islam, however, we do see the dangers of fundamentalism that are arising to a lesser extent in modern America.


p.s. I'm pointedly not too stupid to see your point; I'm actually a fairly clever guy. Clever enough, it seems, to see the things about modern Christianity you'd rather not pay any attention to.

I'm unaware of any prohibitive policies regarding religion or sexual orientation, for boys in any of their programs.

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country

The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Wow care to cite that?

Hmm, well you can turn right to the new testament book of romans, chpt 1 and read wht it has to say about homosexuality. But there is no excuse or reason to be hateful or angry at the people, just stand up for what you believe. I think thats all that PTC has done. You don't know too much about the religions that you hate, do you?

BLB,

How old was your friend when this happened?

What did you mean by "you didn't exactly jump to respond the first time around"? I may have ignored some of your bogus claims, but I don't recall ducking any of your points.

Position Statement on the Cradle of Liberty Council's Stance Regarding the Leadership Standards of the Boy Scouts of America
Monday, June 9th, 2003, 9 a.m.
Recently the Cradle of Liberty Council Board of Directors held discussions concerning a non-discrimination disclosure that the council has signed in order to qualify for United Way funds. These United Way funds are used specifically for the council's Learning for Life program at the request of the local United Way executive board.

This non-discrimination disclosure was directed to the use of United Way funds in the Learning for Life program and was not, and was not intended to be, an indication of any desire by the board to depart from the National Council policies nor should it be construed as any indication that Cradle of Liberty Council will fail to uphold any policies of the Boy Scouts of America.

The Learning for Life program working through schools, businesses and other community organizations delivers values based programs to thousands of children. This program is not a membership program and selection of the adults who deliver the program is up to the institution that sponsors the program.

The Cradle of Liberty Council is chartered by the National Council, Boy Scouts of America to conduct its various programs in Philadelphia, Delaware and Montgomery Counties. As such the local council affirms that it will carry out all policies as set forth by the national organization.

Cradle of Liberty Council, Boy Scouts of America is strongly committed to the moral and spiritual development of Scouting youth in accordance with the values in the Scout Oath and Law. In the Oath and Law, the Boy Scout promises to do his duty to God and to be morally straight, as well as to be clean in his thoughts, words and deeds.

The traditional membership programs of Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Varsity Scouting and Venturing have specific requirements and standards of leadership pertaining to all volunteers of which there are approximately 10,000 registered in this council.

Applications for leadership and membership do not inquire into sexual orientation. However, an individual who declares himself to be a homosexual would not be permitted to join Scouting. All members in Scouting must affirm the values of the Scout Oath and Law, and all leaders must be able to model those values for youth.

Consistent with the obligations of the Scout Oath and Law, Scouting teaches youth to show tolerance and respect for all human beings. The Scout Law requires youth to be helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind to all, and Scouts are taught to be respectful of those whose views may be different from their own. Scouting teaches both tolerance and clear moral values. Tolerance for all does not mean that all behavior must be accepted as appropriate for those in Scouting.

Oh, fer crap's sake, I don't hate religions. Heck, I'm a huge fan of reading about them, especially the older ones in the older languages.

Standing up for your religion is noble. Oppressing others in the name of religion (i.e. forbidding gay marriage, requiring prayer in schools, teaching christian creation mythology in science classes, getting in some kind of silly uproar when a cashier tells you 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry christmas,' feeling somehow oppressed when people want your religion to carry the same status in public life as other religions, etc. etc.) is the opposite of noble.


Mark 4:7 (at least in the Gothic bible I have at hand) is apropos here:
And a certain [seed] fell among thorns, and the thorns rose up and choked it, and it gave no fruit.

What we're seeing is the rise of the thorns.

that's the position of that specific council. I'm in a different council. (not that ours probably didn't issue something similar about the time the United Way pulled BSA funding, but I never saw it)

that's the position of that specific council...

Being a practicing homosexual is a choice. I don't doubt some people tend to be attracted to people of the same sex. I tend to love getting high and driving way too fast. I mean I REALLY love it. Gave up drugs a long time ago, and I take it to the track or way out in the country these days...

Sometimes we have to control our impulses for our own good, or the good of society. I love women, but for the sake of my family, wife, and society (not to mention my beliefs), I'm a faithful husband. It's going to be a sad world when the most base desires define our laws and what we value.

Can you please explain where, in all of your circuitous reasoning, the private behavior of two [or] individuals of the same gender threatens your beliefs and your family? And how your rationale as to why homosexuality should not be sanctioned in the law is any different than people who wish to fit the law to their beliefs? Is your spirituality that transparent?

The fact that it took five pages for this proverbial drivel to show up astonishes me. And, like Katie Holmes and scientology, I'm still going to allow myself to succumb to the inanity.

By your analogy, are you saying that 1) gays should be quarantined somewhere out in the country (though hopefully not Laramie, for obvious reasons), or 2) gay experiences are akin to illegal intoxicants? Please clarify.

You call it "private behavior", but I can't turn the TV on without hearing about it, and they want society and I to accept it to the point of passing laws recognizing and validating the behavior. You want to be homosexual? I think it's a poor choice, but fine, keep it behind closed doors. You want to smoke weed? Do it in your house and grow your own. What we do affects others whether we like to admit it or not. Every selfish impulse we give in to has negative consequences.

Gays should consider the consequences of acting on their impulses instead of trying to tell themselves it's OK by working relentlessly to make society accept them.

I'm still waiting for the reasons why we should legalize gay marriage other than "Because we want to". Feel free to chime in....

Because it's unconstitutional NOT to allow two people of the same gender to form a union in the eyes of the law.

Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk. They sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and teach the way of God in truth, no matter who you teach, for you aren't partial to anyone. Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test me, you hypocrites? Show me the tax money."
They brought to him a denarius.
He asked them, "Whose is this image and inscription?"
They said to him, "Caesar's."
Then he said to them, "Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
When they heard it, they marveled, and left him, and went away.

Why are homosexuals so determined to marry?

The church created, defined and upheld marriage for thousands of years before anyone started demanding that homosexuals be allowed to do it too.

Why does it make sense to demand that the church change an instution which it created? Why don't homosexuals just create an institution of their own?

Ironically, (some) homosexuals feel they are entitled to completely rewrite the definition of marriage, to insure that they get certain rights that they never previously had.... and they think that by not being given these newly thought up rights, they are somehow being marginalized.

Oh, fer crap's sake, I don't hate religions. Heck, I'm a huge fan of reading about them, especially the older ones in the older languages.

Likewise, many mainstream denominations recommend the "Left Behind" books for their followers, and those, besides being atrocious prose distinctly unworthy of their status as best sellers, are a sort of hateful pornography of self-righteousness, glorying in the death and destruction of millions, so long as those millions are the wrong kinds of people (athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, people who maintain their lawns outside of the specification of their homeowners associations, etc). Yet there is no outrage about this in mainstream Christianity. These people are selling you smug self-righteousness, morally-acceptabe hate, and the religious joy of genocide, and somehow the Christian mainstream eats it with a spoon and begs for more.

Anyone who thinks marriage has been the same for thousands of years is at best ill-informed.

Why are homosexuals so determined to marry?

The church created, defined and upheld marriage for thousands of years before anyone started demanding that homosexuals be allowed to do it too.

Why does it make sense to demand that the church change an instution which it created? Why don't homosexuals just create an institution of their own?

Good job nobody here said it has been then.

The church created, defined and upheld marriage for thousands of years before anyone started demanding that homosexuals be allowed to do it too.

Of course, by 'newly thought up rights,' you mean rights currently enjoyed only by heterosexual people.

Anyone who thinks marriage has been the same for thousands of years is at best ill-informed.

That would explain:
This looks like a poorly considered example of using the behavior of a very minor group to make sweeping assertions about Christianity in America.

Please tell us which mainstream denominations are recommending these books - The Roman Catholic Church? The United Methodist Church? PCUSA? PCA? ECUSA?

Anyone who thinks marriage has been the same for thousands of years is at best ill-informed. Curiously enough, the church didn't create marriage at all. Otherwise, pre-Christian Rome wouldn't have had marriages, nor would the Indo-Aryans and Hittites have documented marriage-types long before the Hebrews.

Differing ideas of family structure in various parts of the world have yielded vastly different ideas and senses of connection. Anthropologists call these "kinship systems," and a little research would do you some good.

I'm sure that instead, you'll get back to ignoring the fundamental truths of history, because that way, it's easier to keep gay people from having the same rights you do.

Only heterosexual people? How "newspeak" of you. :lol:

No doubt the exact definition has shifted over the milleniums, but has there been a time when it involved a union that wasn't between a man and a woman?

You really do have a knack for pulling up obscure points in an effort to muddy the waters.

Since you seem to know so much about the histories of marriage, perhaps you can give us some examples of Gay Marriage having mainstream acceptance in developed societies throughout the ages.

Baptist ministries fairly commonly use them. A quick google search revealed a number of speaking engagements for the authors at Baptist conferences. You yourself already discovered that one of these was the best-selling novel of 2001, and you can bet it wasn't Hindus doing the buying.

Perhaps I should limit my statements more to the evangelical mainstream. However, they're the visible ones, and other Christian denominations don't make themselves heard. As has often been said of Muslims world-wide, where's the outrage?

And I don't hate religion, despite your accusations to the contrary. There is great promise in the tenets of Christianity, as they come through the new testament. However, those tenents seem to have given away to the fight to keep gay people from gaining full recognition as equal citizens of the republic, while newly-built megachurches show that the moneychangers are pointedly back in the temple.

The point is that any basic sense of fairness dictates that you should extend to your fellow human beings those rights you crave for yourself.

My (guy) friend's boyfriend got in a car accident and ended up in the hospital. My friend wasn't allowed in to see him. Fucking justify that.

I might be more inclined to believe you if you ever had anything positive to say about Christianity in this country.

Ironically, (some) homosexuals feel they are entitled to completely rewrite the definition of marriage, to insure that they get certain rights that they never previously had....

...and they think that by not being given these newly thought up rights, they are somehow being marginalized.

Talk about your sense of entitlement. :roll:

you shouldnt mix the "church" marriage (or wedding) with "legal" (or state) marriage.

legal mariage is just a means for officially registering a partnership.

Since you seem to know so much about the histories of marriage, perhaps you can give us some examples of Gay Marriage having mainstream acceptance in developed societies throughout the ages.
...
No doubt the exact definition has shifted over the milleniums, but has there been a time when it involved a union that wasn't between a man and a woman?
...
Please tell us which mainstream denominations are recommending these books - The Roman Catholic Church? The United Methodist Church? PCUSA? PCA? ECUSA?
...
Can anyone produce a single discrimination case, involving any boys active in the scouts?

That's the law isn't it?

Or do you think we should have a right to break the law without penalty as and when it's convenient?

Oh wait. That's basically evil and abhorrent. I hope you're getting the picture, here.

Rights require qualification.

I can't have the right to bear children because I'm not a woman.

I can't have the right to be gay because I'm not sexually attracted to men.

I can't have the right to be an award-winning author because I can't write well.

Gay couples cannot marry because they are not of the opposite gender to each other.

We have basic human rights which we are born with. Every other right requires qualification.

That's the law isn't it?

Or do you think we should have a right to break the law without penalty as and when it's convenient?

No, not really. I can see that you're playing an irrelevant race card to try to win an argument which is making you look increasingly foolish though.

Black people have no choice but to be black. Homosexuals do have a choice about whether to get married.

I notice you completely ignored my comment that rights require qualification, whcih is not surprising considering you can't tell the difference between being black and being gay.

No, not really. I can see that you're playing an irrelevant race card to try to win an argument which is making you look increasingly foolish though.

Black people have no choice but to be black. Homosexuals do have a choice about whether to get married.

I notice you completely ignored my comment that rights require qualification, whcih is not surprising considering you can't tell the difference between being black and being gay.

c.f. pederastical system of Greece

You mean pedophilia?

And rights do need some qualification, it's just that you believe that gay people are somehow undeserving of the rights that you would claim for yourself.

I don't claim them, I qualify for them.

You want the qualifications changed? Ask whoever set them. In the case of marriage, that's the church, and they've said no.

Like I said before, why don't homosexuals just make up their own institution? They've been told no. Why not just accept it and build something of their own?

it's prejudice and discrimination.

We tried separate but equal before. It doesn't turn out very equal.

I don't claim them, I qualify for them.

You want the qualifications changed? Ask whoever set them. In the case of marriage, that's the church, and they've said no.

Like I said before, why don't homosexuals just make up their own institution? They've been told no. Why not just accept it and build something of their own?

I don't claim them, I qualify for them.

You want the qualifications changed? Ask whoever set them. In the case of marriage, that's the church, and they've said no.

Like I said before, why don't homosexuals just make up their own institution? They've been told no. Why not just accept it and build something of their own?

It's no more prejudice and discrimination than my not being able to be homosexual. I just don't qualify.

Really? When was that?

Plessy v. Ferguson until Brown v. Board of Education, in the legal sense, anyway.

Pray (for lack of a better word) you tell us what kind of an institution this would be? And what kind of authority it would have??

They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc.

Their own institution does not gain them access to the same equal treatment under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't think most gay couples that wish to wed are seeking the Pope's permission. They are asking the State of [Insert state name here] to recognize that they should have the same rights and privileges that all heterosexual married couples have under the laws of the state in which they live, work, pay taxes, vote, etc.

They can have all those rights with just a couple of pieces of paperwork and a brief visit to a lawyer.

But that's not what you really want, is it?

But that's not what you really want, is it?