Anyway. Pardon the froth, everyone, but I've heard that kind of 'lecture' under other circumstances.

Be glad *my* Gods aren't like *yours,* that's all I can say.

I can only assume that in your Christian ideological perfection, claiming you 'treat others as you would want to be treated,' that you actually wanted to be treated in the manner you treated me, when I was beaten and briused and crying for mercy... so I return the kindness:

*rubbing finger and thumb together,*

This is the smallest violin in the world, playing my heart bleeds for you.'

Tough guy.

Btw, on this:

"It would appear that you have no regard for the laws of nature and of God who organized the earth."

If that's how 'it would appear' to you, Christian, you neither know me, nor Pagankind.

In fact, it's almost like you don't care about the *actual* truth.

You can believe what you like, but if the demands you make in the name of your God don't meet with reality, humanity, compassion, love, family, justice, or the founding principles of the United States of America...

Tough T's.

I mean, you're so terrified of your 'punishing and apparently really sexually-hung-up-God,' ...you're making excuses before you even own up to what you're *doing?*

I thought you Christians claimed to be a humble and penitent faith.

Not feeling it. Let me tellya.

Also, Mr. 'Christian' I can't help but notice that as usual, I'm talking about *people.* About *humans.* About 'love and family.'

And you can't even demonstrate or acknowledge you're *aware* of who you seek to hurt in the name of your religion.

Which apparently *absolves* you from seeing human beings.

If that *is* the 'will of the only God,' then I guess sooner or later life is gonna have a problem with 'God.'

Only, I think it's simpler.

I've seen a lot.

But as far as people talking about hurting me and my family over what your spout.

I only see *you.*

And you may threaten Hells and holy wars, but I know you're just mortal.

Got knees like anyone else.

If you really want to make it your life's occupation to hurt my family.

Dimensio:
"Paganplace your secular mind does you disfavor. "

I think whatever told you this was about my 'secularism' has done you more than disfavor. If you think it means you can hurt my loved ones in the name of your view of your 'God' and call it 'America.'

I think whoever told you you could *scare* me away from *my* family has done you a deception.

And I think the time you spent trying to twist this state of affairs around backwards so that somehow its really your 'God' that says you have some right to hurt me and those I love.

Was wasted.

I see no God worth hearing about.

I only see *you.*

Didn't say I don't have my own.

Or even that I don't think that if the Christian's God exists... He'd have to be either smarter than you or kinder.

Meanwhile.

I'm an American. And trust me I have faith that's been through stuff you won't even admit dishing out.

So.

Where are we now, sport?

Paganplace your secular mind does you disfavor. I find your last comment irrelevant to my comment. At least from my personal understanding.

It would appear that you have no regard for the laws of nature and of God who organized the earth. Where would you be otherwise in this universe? You are free to think as you wish and to act as you choose, but you must not step in front of a steamroller, or walk off a cliff if you love life. Out of love God permitted us our freedom of choice. We can choose to believe as we wish. We can deny, point blank, anything even the truth, whether or not we are being honest.

In this case, those who are promoting, and demonstrating and plundering and insulting in their behavior appear to be you and the institutions who promote false liberty. It is an attempt to force your demands concerning marriage. Marriage is not a convention of the government of man, but a sacred union of a righteous man and his chosen, honorable and loved woman as his wife.

I love the truth with all my heart, and all people, and I consider everyone as my brother and sister, a mother or father. I would not deny you a breath of fresh air, or a glass of pure water to save your life, but I would do every thing possible to prevent you from stepping in front of a steamroller or stepping off a cliff.

I would persuade you and everyone with the truth, in honor, virtue and godly love that God not forcing or compelling anyone, He condemns that behavior but we have our free will to reap the consequence according to our choices, ill for ill and good for good.

True it is that addictions are an international epidemic, a pandemic that destroys its victims so slowly they are not even aware of it, until the slope is so steep they are helpless to escape without help.

What does it profit a man to win the whole world, and to lose his opportunity of immortality and eternal life, because of irresponsible, ignorant and unsavory behavior? "We reap what we sow." There is no greater law. And if the love of the father in not in our heart, we have lost it already. This life is to learn and to repent, to learn to know and understand, so that we may act in wisdom as free agents to obtain liberty in the truth.

And, no, Dimensio. I don't care how 'big and bad' you think your God is.

I've met the type. Doesn't change what's real or right.

'Dimensio:'

"In answer to PAGANPLACE

"We are all Free, as are the consequences that result form our choices good for good and ill for ill."

This idea is an apologism for your particular demands you place upon your own God and other humans as to what you wish to demand is the shape of 'Creation.'

It gives you no insight at all into the nature of others. Could not.

"Power and Freedom to Choose - Spirituality, Self-mastery and Service or Devilishness, Bondage and Slavery."

It would be bondage, slavery, and, if not 'devilishness' (whatever that is) ...to me, lies and dishonor and deception, if I were to do what you say and pretend to be straight, pretend to love a man, and pretend that was good for a child I might have in the process.

My stepdaughter was a child conceived and born, and sadly abused, by others, who were trying to do 'your God's' bidding... Until they both wised up.

Enter, me, your 'Devil' trying to raise and care for the child of a deception of *your* device.

Wonderful, wonderful child. She deserved better than one Mommy who had her on pretense she and the man involved could pretend to be straight, then kicked into the urban underclass cause she was not... And better than another Mommy who hadn't even had her ears stop ringing from the abuse *I'd* been through before ...There was someone I loved and a brilliant little daughter to care for, ready or not.

Your harming and financially *driving apart* *our* family did *not* help her.

Over your mad ideas of devils and nonsense.

"Natural Laws are God's Laws, which rule in heaven and on earth. Nature's laws are bound under the laws of God, of which we cannot make compromise, yet we may understand these laws and use them to our benefit. If we fail to observe them there is no mercy only retribution."

Maybe that's why you try to claim the nature of others is 'unnatural.'

But I'll tell you this. I may not want to *breed,* but I got maternal instincts in *spades.*

I see no *God* that's got a problem with that. But if your God's anything like you, he'll get the same reception when it comes to *my* little girl.

Capiche?

Don't try to tell me about 'Nature.' You got it out of a book you don't even understand.

In answer to PAGANPLACE

We are all Free, as are the consequences that result form our choices good for good and ill for ill.

Power and Freedom to Choose - Spirituality, Self-mastery and Service or Devilishness, Bondage and Slavery.

Natural Laws are God's Laws, which rule in heaven and on earth. Nature's laws are bound under the laws of God, of which we cannot make compromise, yet we may understand these laws and use them to our benefit. If we fail to observe them there is no mercy only retribution.

The laws of God and nature all work as one, and for one purpose that make our existence possible, without which there would be no existence.

When God created man, spiritually in his own image, He created them as male and female. After the spiritual creation in heaven they were created upon the earth, and united as man and WIFE, evidence of the eternal union through God, the Father of all spirits; commanding them to cleave unto each other, and to multiply and to REPLENISH THE EARTH.

HAVING GIVEN THE MAN AND HIS WIFE THEIR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, HE ALSO WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISOBEDIENCE OR THE AFFECT THAT DISOBEDIENCE AND IGNORANCE HAVE IN THE LIVES OF ALL HUMANITY.

For over 6000 years, the traditional marriage has been the norm for all of humanity. Of late, the promotion of addictive lifestyles has sought to promote and profit from this fallout, to broaden their exploit at the expense of our children and the future of families. Getting on the marriage train is their best way to promote their business and the addictive lifestyles they promote from those who also depend on them.

Following the money trail, we can see that certain industries profit from this arrangement, who have found the way to hide their evolvement by using other agencies and the people compromised by them. Here the name gets the blame, not the agent hiding behind the name. Clever chameleon like behavior to hide their exploit serves their purpose.

Can you guess which industries would profit in such a criminal and irresponsible way?

These industries are using their right to choose devilish means to bring us all under bondage and slavery as prisoners, where no one is free. These promote devilishness, bondage and slavery and call it liberation and freedom. Because of this, the world is becoming less free daily. Only the truth of this and obedience to good conscience and moral principles can we free ourselves of the spiritual plagues that destroy good conscience and promote servitude.

Power and Freedom to Choose - Spirituality, Self-mastery and Service or Devilishness, Bondage and Slavery.

"As we think we travel. As we entertain we choose to dream and aspire, to plan and pursue>"--PLH "Life in a Nutshell"

Are you not entertained? :)

"Spirituality Our true aim, is the consciousness of victory over self and communion with the infinite; to feel ones faculty unfolding and truth expanding the soul."
"Spirituality impels one to overcome difficulties and acquire more and more strength, which is life's most sublime experience." —David O. McKay

Communion with infinity and 'unfolding truth' doesn't have to mean 'victory over the self' if you, err... get out of your own way. Never mind feel the need to have 'victory' over the individuality of others.

Certainly, trying to achieve 'victory' over someone *else's* self is way off that course, never mind a justification to become an oppressor of others.

"The oxymoron, "Diversequality" defies logic."

Then, you shouldn't have coined the term, should you?

But you speak of value. Claim value an only come of being the same as *your* 'individuality,' or what you think it is. We're 'created equal,' *not* 'Created the same.'

Never mind needing to be coerced to *pretend* we're the same.

Enforced conformity is not respect.
*Trying* to enforce conformity is not 'equality.'

It's *avoiding the very *concept* of equality. Avoiding the very experience you're given to live, now.

(continued below)

" Virtuous principles, moral and ethical values, which are diverse are not equal, and equality is not obtained when one value rules for some and other values rule for others, who live and share together in the same family, community, culture or society."

Sameness and virtue are not related.
Your statement is illogical, because it presupposes *superiority* ...which, if it existed, should need no argument.

Diversity is superior to monoculture.
Because it is stronger and less blind and vulnerable.

Equality is superior to oppression and enforced conformity.
Because it enables each of us to offer to each other our utmost, not the 'most acceptable show of conformity'

" Oil and water do not mix,"

Don't try to tell me about my spaghetti sauce. ;)

" and neither does a diversity of values, customs or moral values foster unity and equality."

Equality is irrelevant in soulless conformity. If equality is of value to you, so must diversity.

"For a little over 6000 years marriage was instituted by the Father of all spirits, the creator of man in His image, male and female created He them, in the heavens before they were created physically upon the earth."

Incorrect.

Marriage even in 'Judeo-Christian' terms was always about property arrangements, treating women and children *as* property, ...those opposing gay marriage now couldn't *hack* what marriage was among our founding books and even recent translations thereof. Which were not the world.

"Genesis 2:24 - 25
"Therefore shall a man leave his FATHER and his MOTHER, and shall cleave unto his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh."
"And they were both naked, the man and his WIFE, and were not ashamed.""

Well, what do you know, I think *a* man and *a* woman must have done that at some point.

Where'd the shame come in?

"Shared values in self-mastery foster equality, while the diversity of values destroys equality, unity, families, communities, cultures and nations. "If we fail to tame and train our own nature as prisoners of vice, we cannot respect or serve our neighbour." --PLH"

It's not *self-mastery* if you're trying to master others and call it a religious observance, 'PLH.'

*I'm* no prisoner of 'vice.'

You are.

All this noise directly concerns me, but not you. What else could you have been doing?

Posted by: dimensio

"As we think we travel. As we entertain we choose to dream and aspire, to plan and pursue>"--PLH "Life in a Nutshell"

"Spirituality Our true aim, is the consciousness of victory over self and communion with the infinite; to feel ones faculty unfolding and truth expanding the soul."
"Spirituality impels one to overcome difficulties and acquire more and more strength, which is life's most sublime experience." —David O. McKay

The oxymoron, "Diversequality" defies logic. Virtuous principles, moral and ethical values, which are diverse are not equal, and equality is not obtained when one value rules for some and other values rule for others, who live and share together in the same family, community, culture or society. Oil and water do not mix, and neither does a diversity of values, customs or moral values foster unity and equality.

For a little over 6000 years marriage was instituted by the Father of all spirits, the creator of man in His image, male and female created He them, in the heavens before they were created physically upon the earth.

Genesis 2:24 - 25
"Therefore shall a man leave his FATHER and his MOTHER, and shall cleave unto his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh."
"And they were both naked, the man and his WIFE, and were not ashamed."

Shared values in self-mastery foster equality, while the diversity of values destroys equality, unity, families, communities, cultures and nations. "If we fail to tame and train our own nature as prisoners of vice, we cannot respect or serve our neighbour." --PLH

You with me on this, Farnazz? The problem isn't that the laws need changing for religious freedom and equality: the *problem* is that people don't *understand* the reality of the law, and are often disinformed about it.

It does no harm for New Hampshire's law to make plain what has always been true about same-sex-marriage anywhere: that clergy don't have to answer to the state as to what particular ceremonies they'll perform, or give reason.

As clergy, *I* can perform marriages in some states. I'm not a business. I can choose when and where I do such, for any reason. I don't have the right to stop anyone from marrying at the courthouse, though. That's as it should be.

Farnaz: "Appeasement did not work for Chamberlain, never worked, never will."

This isn't about *appeasement,* (see my posts a few days ago if you think I think it's about 'appeasement,' ....it's about *relevance.*

Whether or not clergy can perform marriages at all really doesn't relate to the issue at hand: same sex marriage.

Clergy so-licensed are as good a witness to an oath as anyone, it wouldn't be 'separation of Church and state' to deny them that privilege and say it's about fairness to same sex couples.

Any more than it's *true* when anti-gay religious people claim that marriage equality would force clergy to perform marriages they don't agree with. It just doesn't work that way.

Paganplace: To each his/her own. You have your agenda and you're welcome to it. Kindly allow me the same. You fail to understand that you cannot give way to "church" pressures in civil matters for hundreds of years without undesirable consequences. These would include the fight against choice, stem cell research, gay marriage, and the promulgation of (un)intelligent design "theories." Appeasement did not work for Chamberlain, never worked, never will.

"US-Conscience, (ironically-named):

"Same Sex Attraction ( SSA ) IS the judgment of God. He has given us up to depraved lusts to do what ought not be done and to recieve the penalty there of. He has given us up to believe the lie and reject the truth. Woe to all who recieve there of."

Interesting God you've got there. Sounds pretty kinky, there, that world you live in.

We're talking about *marriage,* here, sport, not 'lust.' Don't look at me, I don't even understand the concept of 'lust' as you types describe it, you sound like you live in some kind of pressure-cooker of repressed sexuality.

One wonders how so many of you homophobes seem to get to know *all about* 'resisting unnatural attractions,' and needing someone to 'stop you' or whatever.

Could be that's how so many of you seem to end up in bathroom stalls looking for anonymous gay sex or something. That's really not a healthy way to live, you know.

My sweetie and I, we're mostly just nesting, and would like our civil rights, now, if you don't mind so terribly much. :)

"I don't know that I'd say I'm trying to be helpful. If I'm trying to be helpful, it's to myself, notwithstanding the fact that I'm straight. If I'm trying to be helpful, it is to all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. I believe that state and "church" must be separated. Period."

Frankly, Farnazz, if that's your agenda on this, then, kindly stop trying to attach *that* not-gonna happen idea to *my* rights to civil marriage.

Or in fact *my* religion's equal right to be licensed by the state to perform handfastings. The state's part is the marriage *license,* whether the ceremonies and oaths are witnessed by a priest, rabbi, priestess, court officer, J.P, Elvis impersonator, or sea captain.

I believe in separation of Church and State, too. Civil marriage is not a certain religion's to enjoy exclusive government favor with, but clergy are citizens as much as is the Justice of the Peace.

As for *gay* people's marriage, it's not helpful for either equality nor religious freedom to try and attach the idea it'd be 'the gays' fault' if Christian brides and grooms had to have two ceremonies.

On the conservative Christians' part, they need to recognize that civil marriage is *not* something they have a right to 'define' to the exclusion of others.

Same Sex Attraction ( SSA ) IS the judgment of God. He has given us up to depraved lusts to do what ought not be done and to recieve the penalty there of. He has given us up to believe the lie and reject the truth. Woe to all who recieve there of.

PaganPlace: "Well, Farnaz, I don't think actually taking away privileges from churches is really the way to convince straight-only churchgoers that gay marriage takes nothing away from them."

I don't know that I'd say I'm trying to be helpful. If I'm trying to be helpful, it's to myself, notwithstanding the fact that I'm straight. If I'm trying to be helpful, it is to all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. I believe that state and "church" must be separated. Period. The "churches" should never have been a part of the marriage business to begin with, although I understand, why, historically, they were. We are in the twenty-first century. Like the writers, we recognize that marriage is a civil institution that entails legally binding obligations and privileges, rights and responsibilities imposed by the state, not the "churches." If, to use the writers' words, the "white evangelical Protestant[s]" are to run the country as a theocracy, let us say so and have done with it.

If not, the marriage contract must be removed from the "churches." The marriage contract must also go federal as is clear from the essay.

I invite anyone who thinks that living in a theocracy is a good idea to spend a year in Iran. Forget the Jews, Christians, Bahai who have fled from that country, and, speak instead to Iranian Muslims living in the US. The problem is not Islam. It is religion wed to patriarchy, the deadly mix that took the life of Dr. Tiller.

Well, Farnaz, I don't think actually taking away privileges from churches is really the way to convince straight-only churchgoers that gay marriage takes nothing away from them.

I know people are trying to be helpful when they say, 'Churches shouldn't be allowed to perform binding civil marriages at all' ...But it was never necessary, and it's probably counterproductive for equality.

In the face of a *massive* disinformation effort to convince Christians that their churches would be forced to perform any marriage ceremony they don't want to, it was a good move on New Hampshire's part to make plain in the law what was always the reality of the situation.

Marriage is a contractual relationship involving both parties in legally defined rights and obligations. These rights and obligations are defined by the state and enforcible by the state, not by the "church."

Clerical opposition to gay marriage while legally irrelevant remains a stumbling block to granting gay couples full civil rights. This is a disgrace.

Remedy: Religious institutions must be denied the right to perform marriages, a right they should never have had, given our commitment to separation of church and state.

After this right is removed, religious institutions may, if they wish, perform whatever additional ceremonies they wish, these ceremonies to be wholly without legal implications.

Since when have clergy EVER been firced to perform wedding rituals agaisnt their will?
After all, it is perfectly LEGAL for Catholics to marry Protestants, but no one can legally force a Catholic priest to perform the ritual.
It is perfectly LEGAL for people to remarry after a divorce, but no one can force a Ctholic priest to perform a wedding ritual for divorcees.
It is perfectly LEGAL for Jews to marry Gentiles, but no rabbi can be forced to perform the ritual.
Clergy cannot be forced to perform wedding rituals between members of their own congregations.
Clergy are not legally obligated to perform wedding rituals at all.
Clergy have ALWAYS had the legal option of refuaing to perform a wedding ritual for any reason whatsoever.

As for the actual *topic,* though, I hope the columnist will understand my ...irritation, at his acting as if 'If only queer people had shown enough 'respect' by putting into law 'assurances' that things no gay marriage law ever needed...

Bullfeathers.

*Respect?*

Where's the Christian clergy been when 'I can't wait for God to Kill Anywhere Gay people are cause I'm Straight Straight Straight ' boy was talking about the dignity of *my* life?

This little SOB is praying for half the country to get nuked and calling *me* a traitor.

'Respect,' Reverend?

Where you been to deserve 'respect?' Lookitthis.

What I lived through so you could not alienate... This piece of used Pampers?

Are you *serious?*

I mean, I know we don't want to feed trolls here, and I don't want to criticize your child-rearing skills (which suck)... but if you Christiand leave it to queer Pagans to try and talk your cracked crockery out of wanting to blow up the world for ultimate Good...

Understand there's only so much we Pagans can do. There's only like a million of us. :)

Also, Christians, you know how someone you might have heard of mentioned you would be known by your fruits?

Spiderman-underooes-boy here would count as one of your fruits.

Curb yer fruits.

See, Spidey, and Fundies who taught the poor thing what he's spouting...

If homosexuality is a *engage capslock* 'Disease'...

Why is this boy the one screaming for the world to get nuked?

Obviously *very* straight. Must be a real lady-killer, too. Ooh, baby.

"

Homosexuality is a DISEASE. That is hwat many people are forgetting. You don't give rights to a disease, do you?"

Well, technically, if you wanted to be Christian, you'd have to go among the *lepers.*

Not to let a little thing like *Jesus* get in the way of your Christianity.

"CURE THEM or else, like the swine flu virus, they will destroy the society."

Feer the swine flu virus.

If you *really* don't want people to end up gay, you should break from the party line and oppose putting EDCs (Endocrine disrupting chemicals) in all the plastics you want to deregulate.

Won't make gay people *go away* but it might mean there are fewer dice thrownn that might come up queer.

" Their practices is against nature and nature would not stand idly by to see their stupidity continue."

Ah. Really. *Now* who's putting the 'created' above the 'Creator?'

I'm actually kinda *pretty devout in my actual Nature-worship* ...Christians have tried to decide that 'No Mommies is better than two, but otherwise, boo, hiss 'big government!'

But don't tell me about Nature.

Especially when you're trying to tell a sterile queer gal to marry some guy in the name of 'fertility.'

" Sooner or later , destruction will run over them."

Yeah, yeah, you can complain about how 'soon' it comes or doesn't come while you're wanking this nonsense in twenty years.

I was mopping the floor with your mentality when the 'nuclear clock' was thirty seconds to zero.

What you trying to do here, spud, go for double or nothing?

spidermean2

^ .^. ^
FOOD
http://{J}
http://.{O}
http://...{Z}
http://......{E}
http://.........{V}
http://............{Z} dot US
HOME
http://................{J}
http://..................{O}
http://......................{Z}
http://.........................{E}
http://...........................{V}
http://..............................{Z} dot US
L♥VE
http://.................................{J}
http://....................................{O}
http://.......................................{Z}
http://..........................................{E}
http://.............................................{V}
http://................................................{Z} dot US
CLOTH
http://.....................................................{J}
http://.......................................................{O}
http://..........................................................{Z}
http://.............................................................{E}
http://................................................................{V}
http://...................................................................{Z} dotUS

AND: Don't Worry KEEP BUSY:

">s>h>a>l>o>m
>>>>>">http://./>>>>>
________♥
_______♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
_♥♥♥♥♥_____♥♥♥♥♥♥
__♥♥♥♥_____♥♥♥♥♥
_♥♥♥♥♥______♥♥♥♥♥
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
______♥♥♥♥♥
_______♥♥♥
________♥

Also, not to burst your bubble, JJ, but.

Just because anti-spamming software is getting smarter, doesn't mean you're getting any more singled-out. Or important.

Again, sorry if after decades of living under all this, I apologize if I'm unduly-snarky, but like *so* many things REpublicans call the 'will of the people' ... 50 percent plus one Californians voted *for* prop 8 because there was an organized campaign by lots of Christians to *disinform them* on this very point.

Like so many other things called 'the will of the people' (as long as the results suit them) by Fundies, ....*more* than sufficient voters to not try and outlaw gay marriage in California, would have *supported* letting gay marriage remain, if they hadn't been convinced that the opposite of reality on this very issue was the case.

The law was clear. Someone went out of their way to disinform the voters about what they were asked to vote for. Wasn't even about the people Prop 8 was meant to hurt, anyway, just some way to try and get the conservative vote out after the GOP bollixed up the country.

I will continue to provide all assurances necessary myself, wherever asked. I will support all local legislators to include reassuring language, however unnecessary, into the law. (And watch out for sneaky phrasings with other implications, too. )

But don't talk to me about 'respect.' The things I've seen anti-gay Christians scream at *seven-year-old girls...* ...as an excuse to try and take our kids away. Gods know where they even came up with what they imagine.

You wanna talk respect?

Respect my patience in the general neighborhood of these people's windpipes.

Respect that this has never been, and never *was,* as you acknowledge, about the actual law.

Just stuff people *use* and call it Christianity. I will *assure* you of this if I have to crawl through your septic tank to do it.

Respect?

Well, like I said, we'll see.

This WAPO blogg are Not (American) not team Players! "NEWSCORP" (from England) does not like the Peaceful U.N. "UNESCO" 400 Year [international] Anniversery of GALALIO's telescope [pbuh & similarly situated Victims of the Vatican].

http://www.astronomy{2009.org}

FRM CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK

Note: Please paste http://www.astronomy{2009.org} into Ye address/Browser window & remove only the Left & Right 'Curly Brackets'.

Beware: If ye (for the Heck of It) post this (bare URL) & hit the "Submit" key; Ye will get a "DENIAL OF SERVICE" . Curse Words are not the only words that are "SENSORED"!

Try the word "SHi{L}OH" (means Peace) & "Post".

Sorry to vent, there. I applaud this move, and that everyone's happy, and that there's one more state my dear one and I can move to with reasonable assurance that our partnership won't be completely overrun by the first person who complains, whether it's their business or not.

As for *respect,* well... Gods. To prevent my dear one and I enjoying equal rights and what security probate law can provide, we've been subjected to graphic and irrelevant portrayals of someone's idea of how gross men, which we aren't, having a particular kind of sex are, called everything from sex-criminals, deviants, traitors, demons, to *barnyard animals*...

All over someone not accepting *assurance* that the law *never* meant any clergy (I've done weddings, myself) would be *forced* to perform a marriage they weren't OK with...)

Now they want *respect* cause they got the obvious fact of the law they refused to understand and hung up countless peoles' lives for years ...redundantly written down?

Gods.

I'm very glad we've found this settlement, and I hope we can all live by this example, but *respect..?*

Well, let's have fairness under the law and be respectable to each other, shall we?

Guess that's the thing. We people in question with these laws and such have been trying to *assure* you that no clergy in any state is can or would be forced to perform a marriage ceremony they don't approve of for *any* reason, but a certain massive effort to oppose my equality as a human being, yes, led by certain Catholic clergy and those Protestants not wanting to be 'mainline' on the particular issue ....have gone out of their way in many places to disinform voters on this very point of...

Their own jobs.

No, gay marriage or failing to try and outlaw our equal rights, *never,* *ever,* *anywhere* *had anything to do with clergy being able to choose what marriages they would solemnize.*

Now that a lot of real people and real situations have been hurt by these political maneuvers.

Pardon the snark, but, *dammit.*

I assure you. They assure you. Everyone assures you. It never had anything to do with it. You will not have to perform gay marriages if you don't see fit.

Just means that those who do *can.*

Here, there's the 'respect' you were hurting us over all these years.

Can we do this now? The language is *redundant,* but everyone can live with it.