Same sex marriage-Massachusetts

[Zixar]

Ex: You just don't remember where you left it, right? :D-->

[excathedra]

remember what ?

?

[Trefor Heywood]

Thanks zix! :D-->

The real life bit is a very good question! ;)-->

At least it helps keep me out of mischief!

Mark - timescales for what you envisage could take some time. From my reading of The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong the justices grant cert to only about 200 out of five thousand cases that are filed each year. Normally cases have been through the lower courts first also. As even DOMA has not yet come up for a ruling it could be some time before anything else along these lines does either?

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[LG]

Mark,

I appreciate the response, but you didn't answer my question. I wasn't asking how you think a court might rule, but how you figure that the marriage laws of any State "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[markomalley]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Long Gone:

Mark,

I appreciate the response, but you didn't answer my question. I wasn't asking how you think a court might rule, but how you figure that the marriage laws of any State "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

---

Actually, I did answer the question. What the court says is what the constitution says. They are incapable of being wrong, even if they reverse themselves from time to time. They are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent ;)-->

I personally agree with what you're trying to say, but my opinion doesn't matter, as I am a marginalized leper.

Oh, by the way, the individuals are the individuals that are a member of the class. The members of that class will state that just as interracial bans were ruled unconstitutional, sexual diversity rules in the marriage laws are also unconstitutional.

Edited February 27, 2004 by Guest

[LG]

Thanks, Mark. I was just trying to understand your thinking a little better.

[Zixar]

Something just dawned on me...

The flap is that if Mass. allows gay marriage, then other states will have to accept the Massachusetts Marriage Certificate, right?

I have a Georgia concealed weapons license, but less than a third of the states recognize it under reciprocity agreements. What's different between the two?

Honestly curious,

Zix

[dmiller]

From Zixar -------------------------------------

"The flap is that if Mass. allows gay marriage, then other states will have to accept the Massachusetts Marriage Certificate, right?"

-------------------------------------------------

Here in Minnesota, an unqualified YES :(-->

=================================================

and again from Zixar ----------------------------

"I have a Georgia concealed weapons license, but less than a third of the states recognize it under reciprocity agreements. What's different between the two? Honestly curious"

==================================================

Minnesota will "recognize" your gay marriage, but not your gun. (no pun intended Trefor). To you and I, Zix, federal law should be upheld in ALL states. Yet if you walk into our mall, city hall, newspaper office, etc., you will be greeted with a plethora of signs stating "WE BAN GUNS ON THESE PREMISES".

I see NO such signs against the homosexuals who flout the law, and throw their defiance against us in the most flagrant of ways, yet -- we have to take a back seat, and leave the "registered" gun in the car, if we want to place an ad in the local newspaper, yet a "married" set of homosexuals can walk in, thumbing their nose at the law.

Minnesota now has a conceal-carry permit (with much protest ensuing as a result), and local business owners have taken it upon themselves to decide if they will, or will not allow guns on their premises --- despite the federal law in place.

So the difference between the two, is that you and I have a right to defend ourselves IN ONLY SELECT LOCATIONS, but homosexuals (who do NOT have a right to make us accept that abberent lifestyle) are forcing that upon us in ALL places.

And that is what they are looking to implement, by forcing federal law down our throats, yet rejecting federal law when it is adverse to their wishes, and the gay (I use that term loosely) crowd is not the only one looking to take away rights.

So that was an honest question, and I gave an honest answer. The difference is that 2nd Ammendment rights are being ignored, and preferance is being given to others, who wish to take away liberty and decency from the rest of us who care about such things.

Same sex marriage in Massachusetts is helping "grease the skids" on the path to ruin, conceal-and-carry does not. Perhaps I should have said that in the first place.

Shoot Low. They are riding Shetlands.

[Trefor Heywood]

Zixar:

quote:

---

The flap is that if Mass. allows gay marriage, then other states will have to accept the Massachusetts Marriage Certificate, right?

---

More or less. The idea of DOMA was to have a national definition which allowed individual states to allow other arrangements also that were not binding upon other states. However when it was passed most people did not expect any state to make those other arrangements that DOMA allowed and now they are panicking that DOMA may not be as sufficient an arrangement as it was originally thought to be. I expect they expect that DOMA will eventually be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Dmiller:

Guns can kill people as we too often tragically hear about. Whereas the vast bulk of people no doubt keep them and use them responsibly, and they should have every right to continue to do so (bet that surprised ya), there are situations and circumstances where they are not appropriate.

For some places to ban them is not from blind unthinking discrimination but out of concerns for security and public safety. You don't get a homosexual couple handing a bank teller a note saying "hand over the money or we start kissing in public".

The right to bear arms, has alas been frequently abused. On the other hand the lack of rights for others has been an abuse.

You might be interested to know that there is a group called "Pink Pistols", gay men who support the second amendment but also support gay rights. They seem to be a good balance of what should be American rights to me. :D-->

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

Equal rights

The case for gay marriage

Feb 26th 2004

From The Economist print edition

It rests on equality, liberty and even society

SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal

rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than

devolution to the states. That is the implication of his

announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a

constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have

sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an

effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to

vote for him in November or to put his likely "Massachusetts

liberal" opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a

constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian

move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse

than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.

Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect "the most fundamental

institution of civilisation" from what he sees as "activist judges"

who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling

that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution.

The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing

thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent

contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a

matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme

Court. And those "activist judges", who, by the way, gave Mr Bush

his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal

constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state

code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last

June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws

violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct

their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that "the

Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate

its own moral code". That obligation could well lead the justices to

uphold the right of gays to marry.

Let them wed

That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two

countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status

to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle

and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships.

The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like

those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling,

just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or

kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay

marriage eight years ago ("Let them wed", January 6th 1996) it

shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked

eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why

we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along

precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and

simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a

right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do

no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked

that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some

American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones,

but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it

was "traditional". Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage

is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-

sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but

cannot, on this argument, be "married". But that is to dodge the

real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage,

which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal,

between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If

homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another,

and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so

while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do

so?

Civil unions are not enough

The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an

important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays

want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they

want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of

obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition.

Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability,

for it would increase the number of couples that take on real,

rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage

has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their

infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have

wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it

often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not

alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the

answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of

the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the

constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in

religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the

constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and

stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay

marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created

this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that

cannot, however, be called a "marriage". Some European countries, by

legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved

in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move,

and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he

would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their

ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for

fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr

Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society.

Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a

legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real

marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all.

Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that

really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.

---

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

Comment

From the Guardian Newspaper UK

Not such a special relationship

US Republicans and the British Conservative party are split on the

issue of gay marriage, writes Tom Happold

Wednesday February 25, 2004

The British Conservative party and the US Republicans are heading in

opposite directions when it comes to gay rights, with both reaching

very different conclusions about what is in their best electoral

interests.

President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning

gay marriage comes on the day that the Conservatives announced that

they are hosting a "gay summit" in the House of Commons. The contrast

could not be more stark. The president is trying to make gay rights

an electoral issue - in the hope of painting John Kerry as a New

England liberal in thrall to minority interests - while the Tories

are trying to shed their homophobic image.

The Conservatives have been shifting on gay rights for some time,

urged on by Tory modernisers such as former leadership contender

Michael Portillo. The journey has not been easy. Issues like civil

partnerships, gay adoption and the repeal of section 28 have divided

the party, leading to parliamentary revolts and resignations.

Margaret Thatcher's introduction of section 28 in the 1980s

politicised many in the gay community, setting them against the Tory

party in the process. The measure, banning the "promotion" of

homosexuality in schools, was seen as an attempt to suggest that gay

people were set on "converting" young people and frighten teachers

off discussing sexuality in the classroom.

Attempts to demonstrate that the party had changed, particularly in

its attitude to gay people, following its catastrophic election

defeat in 1997, came against a background of virulent Tory opposition

to the repeal of section 28 in the House of Lords. Mr Portillo's warm

words about tolerance were often drowned out by Baroness Young's

rants about sodomy.

Gay rights have divided the party ever since. John Bercow resigned

from its shadow cabinet after the then Conservative leader Iain

Duncan Smith insisted on forcing his MPs to vote against proposals

allowing gay and unmarried couples to adopt. Fortunately for the

Tories, their new leader Michael Howard has proved better at

articulating a more liberal line without infuriating his traditional

followers.

Earlier this month Mr Howard surprised many by endorsing same-sex

partnerships and applauding those "same-sex couples [who] want to

take on the shared responsibilities of a committed relationship". He

did, however, stop short of backing gay marriage, insisting

that "civil partnership differs from marriage".

Nonetheless, the announcement was significant. It marked a real

effort to court the pink vote, as well as a genuine change of heart.

As Charles Hendry, the Tory MP who is organising the "gay summit",

said: "There are many gay and lesbian people who are instinctively

Conservative, but in the past they could not vote for the party

because of section 28. We are saying we have changed. We are

different."

But the Tories are not only after the pink vote, they are also trying

to appeal to those who have come to regard them (in the words of

their former party chairwoman, Theresa May) as the "nasty party".

Party strategists have concluded that being seen as homophobic does

not only alienate gay voters it also turns off the sort of floating

voters it needs to attract to be electable. President Bush, and his

strategist Karl Rove, have obviously concluded the opposite. America

is, after all, a very different society to Britain. The UK, despite

an established church, is almost an atheist society. The US, on the

other hand, has a substantial bible belt and a powerful Christian

right. Abortion is an enormously divisive issue in America, and

almost irrelevant in Britain.

We will know in November whether the two made the right call, but

research seems to point otherwise. Number crunching by the Annenberg

Public Policy center shows that while Americans are against gay

marriage, they are also against amending the constitution to outlaw

it. Perhaps the Republicans

---

Guardian

quote:

---

---

Guardian

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

This is a resignation letter from a Republican activist in Lakewood Ohio:

quote:

---

From: John Farina [mailto:jf329@mac.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:12 AM

To: Jim Trakas; Jim Trakas; Michael Wise

Cc: Brad Lamb

Subject: Resignation

Hello Jim and Mike,

It is with both sadness and anger that I must present to you my

resignation, effective immediately, from any and all positions (Policy,

Finance, Executive and Central committees, Lakewood Ward 4 leader) I

hold in the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County. I will be submitting

a letter to the Board of Elections withdrawing my name from

consideration for Central Committee on March 2. In fact, on March 2, I

will be pulling a Democratic ballot - effectively ending my 20 year

association with the GOP.

This was an extremely difficult decision for me to reach. I've been a

Republican all my life. But this past Tuesday morning at 10:45, the

President changed things for me.

It was bad enough that my Republican friends in the Ohio Legislature,

people who know me (and know better) and who I've vigorously supported,

voted for a divisive, unnecessary and discriminatory so-called 'Defense

of Marriage' bill. I now have the President, the leader of the party

and the free world, telling me we must sanction this type of

discrimination in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Quite frankly I'm sick over it. It is an insult to me as a life long

Republican and it does nothing to strengthen marriage. It is an

obviously political move that will do nothing but divide the nation

even further. So much for Mr. Bush being a uniter. I can think of no

other time in our country's history where the President has sought to

so directly limit the rights of a group of Americans. This is not a

true conservative value, it is that of the radical right.

I realize that neither of you may be in support of same-sex marriages,

and that's fine with me, but amending the constitution for this purpose

is morally wrong. I hope that most americans will find this disturbing

as well and I believe it will ultimately cost Bush votes. I know I'll

do my part to work against the President and any elected official who

ultimately supports this attack on civil rights.

The party has been over taken, both nationally and statewide, by hard

right social conservatives that seem hell bent on moving the country in

reverse on civil rights - seemingly at the expense of more important

issues such as fiscal responsibility. At one time in history, the

Republican party was a leader in civil rights - that Republican party

no longer exists. I always felt it was important to remain active and

fight such blatant attempts at discrimination, but that effort is

obviously futile.

I count both of you as friends and I hope that you will understand this

very difficult, personal decision. It is hard to walk away from so

many who have supported me in the past. I will miss the many great

people that I have had the opportunity to work with in the Republican

Party of Cuyahoga County over my more than 12 years of involvement,

though I am sure there will be times we may have the opportunity to

work together again. You both have always been very welcoming and

supportive of diverse viewpoints in the party and I know that you will

continue to be. At this point though, I can no longer, in good

conscience, call myself a Republican anymore.

Sincerely,

John Farina

---

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Mister P-Mosh]

[Trefor Heywood]

Mr P-Mosh:

I found that one too! :)--> I was just wondering how you uploaded pics, something I don't know yet!

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Mister P-Mosh]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trefor Heywood:

Mr P-Mosh:

I found that one too! :)--> I was just wondering how you uploaded pics, something I don't know yet!

---

I don't upload them, I link to them on the remote site. The code looks like this:

Just put the link to the photo you want in between the IMG tags.

Edited February 27, 2004 by Guest

[Trefor Heywood]

Oh - simple as that! Thanks!

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[mj412]

-----------------------------------------------------

FAMILY NEWS IN FOCUS STORIES:

-----------------------------------------------------

Gay 'Marriage' Not a Civil Right

by Steve Jordahl, correspondent

SUMMARY: Family advocates, prominent black activists

agree that homosexuals are wrong to equate their

experience with that of African-Americans.

Homosexual activists are hitching their wagon to the civil

rights train and invoking names like Martin Luther King

Jr. and Rosa Parks to justify their claim to marriage.

But is gay "marriage" really a civil right?

Supporters of traditional marriage say no, pointing out

that when the U.S. Supreme Court voided the ban on

interracial marriage in 1972, it specifically upheld the

ban on same-sex marriage. They also note that having

parents from two races is inherently different than having

two "parents" of the same sex.

Jennifer Pizer of the pro-gay Lambda Legal Foundation has

a different view.

"The struggle for equal treatment under the law has

powerful similarities," she said, "because the minority

group needs to explain to the majority group that the

Constitution is about equal treatment."

But Dr. Walter Fauntroy takes issue with the gay activist

claim. Fauntroy, who coordinated the historic civil rights

March on Washington in 1963, said he will never accept the

civil rights comparison, especially in a culture where the

family structure is already decimated.

"What happens in my heart is that I know the difference,"

he said. "Don't confuse my people, who have been the

victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them

another definition of marriage."

He adamantly supports equal rights for all people in the

areas of income, education, health care, housing and

criminal justice, but he said there are two essential

components gay "marriages" would never be able to provide.

First, gay couples can't -- by themselves -- procreate.

"Nor can (homosexual couples) effectively prepare the next

generation for civil society," Fauntroy said. "Every boy

needs a loving relationship with a man and a woman."

Seventy percent of African-American children, he added,

are being raised by single parent families.

[Trefor Heywood]

Re Dr Fauntroy:

I always find it strange that once one group has gained its civil rights they suddenly think that the process is suddenly unnecessary for somebody else.

If he is so happy to uphold past Supreme Court rulings he conveniently forgets previous supreme court rulings that denied rights to him and his people.

Does he honestly think that the civil rights movement had no gay supporters? Does he think that all those who seek marriage rights for gays are white?

More selective trash from a far right "family" group.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[excathedra]

i'm still trying to figure out two people vs. a person

?

[LG]

quote:

---

Originally posted by excathedra:

i'm still trying to figure out two people vs. a person

---

I'll try to explain. First, I'll give a real-life example. (Sorry, but this will be long.)

I have a brother who is homosexual. Each of us is treated exactly the same by the laws of my State and of the United States, including marriage laws. Any person I can marry, he can marry. Any person I cannot marry, he cannot marry. Any crime for which either of us could be charged, the other could too. Any tort for which either of us could be liable, the other could too. Every right either of us has, the other does too. Neither of us is denied the equal protection of the laws.

In every State, exactly the same conditions for marriage apply to every person, without regard to sexual attraction/preference/orientation. Any legally responsible single person who is free from certain diseases may marry any legally responsible single person of the opposite gender who is free from the same diseases, unless that person is within a certain degree of consanguinity (relationship). Sexual orientation/preference/attraction is not even a consideration. The laws apply equally to every person, so no State is denying any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If a State were to exclude a person from marriage because of homosexuality (orientation/preference), then that State would be denying that person the equal protection of the laws. No State does that. Not only can homosexuals marry, many do. (BTW, I use "homosexuals" generically, including lesbians.)

All of the above dealt with "persons", as individuals, just like the Constitution does. Now I'll get into "two people" or "couple" (also applicable to other small groups).

Under the Constitution, I have individual rights and you have the same individual rights. Other than individual rights, there are no constitutional rights, except those of "the people" as a whole. For any other group, there are no rights of the group, but rather, rights of the individuals in the group. Mark's examples of classes were similar to classes in class action lawsuits, in which each member of the class has the same grievance. No "class rights" were violated. Rather, the individual rights of each member of the class were violated.

Similarly, regarding equal protection of the laws, that is guaranteed to individuals, not groups. All sorts of different groups are treated differently by the laws. Partnerships are treated differently than for-profit corporations, which are treated differently than non-profit corporations. Political action committees are treated differently than trade unions. The individuals in those groups are treated equally by the laws. The groups themselves are not. That is appropriate, and perfectly constitutional.

If you'll notice, arguments that marriage laws violate constitutional equal protection provisions always focus on small groups of people (usually "two people" or "couple"), rather than individuals. It is true that a male-male group or a female-female group is treated differently than a male-female group, but that is not unconstitutional unless an individual in one group is treated differently by the law than an individual in another group. As shown above, each individual in each of the three groups is treated exactly the same by existing marriage laws, so the laws do not deny any individual the equal protection of the laws.

Edited February 28, 2004 by Guest

[krys]

Let's give everyone who wants to "get married" a licence for Civil Union only. No matter what gender they are or aren't.

Let them live as spouses for a while. IF they have maintained a monagomous, functional unit for, perhaps 10 years.....THEN let them get married....regardless of gender. I really don't think "youngsters from 18 - 23 or so) really have any idea what marriage really is!

My statement is not only an attempt to lighten up (needed for me...maybe not for you). Given the divorce rate today....this may work out. Let the spouses share health and legal benefits for that time. If the couples, regardless of gender, survive and are willing to remain so for life...then let them be "married".

[Ginger Tea]

Clever theo but...

That would open doors for the moral police ~ lol...too.

See, in this country...brides and grooms can marry, then divorce, remarry themselves or someone new, divorce, and also live with someone and not be married and have kids...but religiously, that's living in sin after the first marriage, right? (get the moral police!)

You can marry and divorce as much as you can afford to...or keep up with...have children with multiple fathers and mothers (all not from the same originating parent union) like 'yours, mine and ours' in a marriage, and you can be common-law (also living in sin to the religious).

We have various types of relationships resulting in marriage for the first time...up until the last time.

Is marriage permanent anymore?

My answer is no...unless a couple is wiling to honour their commitment for a lifetime.

Second marriage is practicaly the norm in some places, among growing numbers of people.

This is all acceptable by society as the right of individuals to choose.

In this instance, monagamous heterosexual unions are doable but our society has a track record of being slow to wrap around the social norm/behavior.

It wasn't too long ago women couldn't vote, afro-americans couldn't ride, and teachers were held accountable for their private lives down to a glass of wine lest their flagrant immoral behavior cost them their job and dignity.

It's pretty abstract nowadays ~ this marriage thing!

A couple can be married by non-clergy who purchased a license out of the back of a magazine too.

People are always pushing the envelope of societal norms.

What was socially acceptable several decades ago is now passe` and what was unacceptable then, is now common practice in some instances.

People are having children at 40 something and some are marrying for the first time, after they have solidified their careers.

What is the family goodness-wholesome marriage model the W.H. is promoting?

Has it all but vacated the social system we lived in decades ago?

We know people in their original marriages but chances are, we know even more people who are happier in their second...or third marriage.

Who's dream are we living, promoting and legislating?

It doesn't seem to me to be the current, common situation anyway.

If it's families we want to preserve, are we a little late?

Or will the judicial system have to provide the means of keeping families together?

What if it's against the will of a participant in a marriage?

Who's to say, with marriage evolving like everything else...what is the ideal, yet doable, realistic expectation to have with such a personal choice?

King Henry built a new religion to get what he wanted...after all...some folks just use arsenic.

I'm not..lol..promoting anything here, just commentary.

[Trefor Heywood]

I'm away for the weekend so will have to be quick:

Long Gone:

quote:

---

any legally responsible single person of the opposite gender who is free from the same diseases, unless that person is within a certain degree of consanguinity (relationship)

---

That's the nub of the argument. Opposite gender only which means that people who wish to marry the same gender are being discriminated against. The fact remains that there are a group of people who do not wish to take up the opportunity offered them for the very reason that their love object is not of the opposite gender. Removing this would enable marriage to gender of choice - your brother might then take this up, you would probably not, but the opportunity is still there then without discrimination.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[excathedra]

long gone thank you for taking the time

(on the other thread too)

?

[LG]

Trefor,

I'm discussing the constitution, not what someone may wish or choose. Persons are guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Wishes and choices are not. If you are suggesting that the Constitution requires that all wishes or choices be equally treated, or that laws should treat all wishes or choices equally, that is ludicrous.