<p>Flameball....thank you. You made my day.</p>
<p>Vancat, thank you for the instruction, I have been wondering how to do that, but when I did what you wrote, it didn't come out that way. I copied your words via the edit dragdown menu, typed "Quote:", then did <em>Control-V</em>, and nothing happened.
What did I do wrong?</p>
<p>ok, after you type something, click on "Go advanced" right next to the "Post quick reply"</p>
<p>Scroll ALL the way down until you see a tiny little box on the bottom left with [IMG] in blue letters. Click on that, which brings up a new window, then scroll ALL the way down to the bottom of that new window until you see the Quote section. It will teach you waht you need to type.</p>
<p>Also, you can make bold, italic, underline, or colored text with this codes too. Try it!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Try it!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks, Vancat!...Maybe this could be the "beginning of a beautiful friendship" despite our political opposition (NOTE: Democrat "reaching out" to Republican!!!)...but it's faster if more annoying to do it the other way :).</p>
<p>"In fact, there is nothing that says marriage itself is a basic human right." </p>
<p>Sorry: I couldn't use the internet to do this quote the way y'all want me to. But I could--and did--use the internet to get the citation for one of the Supreme Court cases which says that marriage itself indeed is a basic human right. In ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL 434 U.S. 374 (1978), for instance, the Supreme Court writes, in pertinent part, "The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. The Court's language on the latter point bears repeating: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."</p>
<p>Searchingavalon, you rock :)</p>
<p>I second that! Hear hear searchingavalon. Wish someone had looked that up and used it on the "No on 36" campaign here in Oregon. One of the DOMC's main arguments was that marriage is not a basic right.</p>
<p>Check out this article: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/11/07/inoffensive_ineffective/%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/11/07/inoffensive_ineffective/</a>
This person is very very smart. Just like me :-).</p>
<p>---"Blaming Margaret H. Marshall is not going to fix what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Marshall's decision on same-sex marriage did not cost the Democrats the White House last week. John F. Kerry's indecisiveness on that and just about everything else did."</p>
<p>"It took only hours for conventional wisdom to lay the Democratic defeat at the door of the chief justice and her colleagues on the Supreme Judicial Court who ruled one year ago that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state Constitution. Four ''activist judges" in Boston, went the argument, energized evangelical Christians nationwide to come out to vote for a president who shares their ''values.""---</p>
<p>Thank you, Patient and Grammy. But Grammy, I'm truly stunned that the DOMC could get away with that. I was telling my 17 year old daughter the story and she interrupted me and cried, "But of course there's a right to marry! That's what Loving v. Virginia is about!" But maybe her knowing that was just a result of our having dressed her in "Future Lawyer" teeshirts in size 2T... :-)</p>
<p>I took constitutional law in 1976 and have forgotten some of it--not all, however. I am going to go back to my books!</p>
<p>Yes, the DOMC said that marriage is a priviledge not a right. Though many argued that this was wrong, no one gave any proof. Obviously, we weren't informed enough and I guess we should have been willing to look for that proof. I regret that I didn't.</p>
<p>Hi all,
I'm a straight, heterosexual guy right now. However, the government recognizing gay marriage is the perfect excuse I need to get into bed with another man. I cant wait! While I'm doing that, I guess I could also defile marriage as an institution. I don't know how I'll do it but hey, if all those knowledgeable folks in Texas say it'll happen, that's good enough for me.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that any institution of "gay marriage" is pretty hopeless at this point. The issue is given to the states thus in turn given to the people to vote on. I would say that in 99.9% of the states an amendment banning "gay marriage" is going to pass.</p>
<p>I previously said I do not support specifically "gay marriage," but I do support civil unions; this may be the only hope for gays and lesbians to gain rights based on union. However, states like Ohio (my state) banned anything that attempts to resemble marriage.</p>
<p>Grammy, I apologize; I didn't mean to make anybody feel bad. And I don't suppose it would have made a difference anyway.</p>
<p>Woohoo!Go Cathy</p>
<p>serchingavalon: You misunderstood me. I had no problem with your comment. Considering my passion for the issue, I genuinely wish I, and others, had been more proactive in educating the public about the misleading claims of the pro-ban proponents. I whine, yet I could have done more to find evidence to support my stance. No offense taken.</p>
<p>Great! Well, next time there's an issue we feel passionate about, let's put our heads together.</p>
<p>How is gay marriage immoral? Marriage is when you wish to spend the rest of your life with the person you love the most? Are you saying gay love isn't real love? Who is anyone to determine what is immoral or not.</p>
<p>By the way, a new study shows that kids raised by same-sex parents are as equally adjusted as kids raised by opposite-sex parents.</p>
<p>TEENS WITH SAME-SEX PARENTS WELL-ADJUSTED
By Karen Pallarito of Forbes / Monday <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/15/hscout522343.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/15/hscout522343.html</a></p>
<p>LESBIAN COUPLES RAISE WELL-ADJUSTED TEENAGERS
By Newscientist.com / Monday <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996670%5B/url%5D">http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996670</a></p>