_________________<br>they cannot provide and inject a balanced male , female values<br>_________________<br><br>Not sure what gay couples you know, but all the ones I know get out of the house and interact with the world! That statement makes no sense at all.<br><br>

I think thou doth protest too much.<br><br>It is all about equality and civil rights.<br>Do you think that<br>a. Gays are superior to heterosexuals?<br>b. Gays are equal to heterosexuals?<br>c. Gays are inferior to heterosexuals?<br><br>If you think gays are equal to straights, then gays/lesbians should have equality across the board.<br>That also means marriage.<br><br>[color:blue]"same-sex marriages aren't recognised by the federal government either"</font color=blue><br><br>In the United States only two states (Massachusetts and California) allow same-sex marriages. <br>Those marriages are recognized by the federal government in exactly the same way as a heterosexual marriage.<br><br>[color:blue]"for one thing a marriage to be valid has to be consummated"</font color=blue><br><br>Consummation is a religious term not a legal one.<br><br>[color:blue]"But your argument happens to ignore the most important point of all - that same-sex marriage represents a needless affront to millions of married couples who for whatever reason would be upset by the change of meaning."</font color=blue><br><br>I would suggest that those married couples either...<br>a. don't believe in equality for gays/lesbians.<br>or<br>b. don't understand the legal advantages that marriages afford gay/lesbian couples.<br> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

Sheesh! Kerry spoke French ferchrissakes!<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you think that<br>a. Gays are superior to heterosexuals? b. Gays are equal to heterosexuals? c. Gays are inferior to heterosexuals?<p><hr></blockquote><p>b.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>f you think gays are equal to straights, then gays/lesbians should have equality across the board. That also means marriage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Hey! What happened to the question? That's a statement!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the United States only two states (Massachusetts and California) allow same-sex marriages. Those marriages are recognized by the federal government in exactly the same way as a heterosexual marriage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Tolerated more like, check the Code<---.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Consummation is a religious term not a legal one.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, it's a legal requirement - an unconsummated 'marriage' is not marriage in law but a ground for annulment.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I would suggest that those married couples either... a. don't believe in equality for gays/lesbians.b. don't understand the legal advantages that marriages afford gay/lesbian couples.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So apart from the six nations that have legislated for gay marriages, all the rest believe in inequality? That's not a credible argument. As for the legal advantages of marriage, well, those can be bestowed upon single people, or as in most of Europe, on parties to a civil union by legislation removing discrimination based on marital status.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I think thou doth protest too much.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not protesting... I'm just sayin'. <br><br>km

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Consummation is a religious term not a legal one.<br><br>No, it's a legal requirement - an unconsummated 'marriage' is not marriage in law but a ground for annulment.<p><hr></blockquote><p>In the U.S., consummation itself most certainly is not a legal requirement to get married in the first place; nor is it a requirement to maintain the legality of a marriage; nor does the lack of consummation in and of itself render a marriage legally invalid (although as you mention it may be a ground for an annulment, depending on the circumstances) ...<br><br>In short, the law doesn't really care if you've had sex or not (or if you even intend to) ...<br><br>Don't know what things are like in your neck of the woods, though ...<br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...

Kerry spoke French, served in Vietnam, and was/is pro gay-rights.<br>He really is anti-American. I can't believe I voted for him.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the U.S., consummation itself most certainly is not a legal requirement to get married<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's not what I said... I said that consummation is a legal requirement of a valid marriage meaning that after the ceremony the parties must consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse. If they don't it's a ground for annulment. Whereas the term 'divorce' is used to describe the dissolution of a valid marriage the term 'annulment' signifies that the marriage was never valid. An an annulment can be based on certain accepted grounds such as fraud or duress and... you guessed... a failure to consummate as this explanation<--- makes plain.<br><br>km<br><br>

No, consummation is not a legal requirement of a valid marriage.<br><br>There is nothing that says a marriage must be consummated by sexual intercourse.<br><br>A marriage is still legally binding even if it wasn't consummated unless one of the partners goes through the legal procedure of having the marriage annulled. <br><br>Divorce is a legal process leading to the termination of a marriage.<br>Annulment is a legal process for declaring a marriage null and void.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No, consummation is not a legal requirement of a valid marriage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Did you read my link or not?<br><br>[color:purple]"Annulment is the process by which a Court states that a marriage never legally existed." </font color=purple> <br><br>and<br><br>[color:purple]"An annulment must be based on mental illness...(or) physical incapacity to consummate the marriage" </font color=purple><br><br>Your statement is like saying that a person who steals your wallet is not a thief until he's found guilty by a court which suggests that you're getting confused between proof and law.<br><br>km<br><br>

I think they need to make "marriage" out of the legal terminology. Replace it with another word like "sanction" or what ever. This sanction will be the legal part of any union and will allow any number of adults to form a sanction union and have all legal rights to that union or family. Thus a sanction familhy could be a couple of men and a woman or several women etc. What ever group that agrees to that sanction.<br><br>Leave the term Marriage to each Church or special interest group. Each group now has their own rules anywan and with my policy then can have any rules they want. A 'marriage' in any church would not necessarily be enough to be a legal Sanction family unless they meet it's requirement for law. Other wise a Marriage may not be legal.<br><br>I like my proposal and those who don't are not opened minded or progressive in thought.<br><br>Oh, I am serous in this. I am not making sarcastic remarks here.<br><br>dave<br><br><br><br>