same love " marriage " is expressly wrong. They do NOT. Irrelevent hypothetical straw woman. If you wish to claim that the courts are always right, thats YOUR burden to prove. If you wish to claim otherwise, ditto. Indeed. As gays have an exact EQUAL right to marry, same as heteroloveuals, NO rights violation exists. QED. Non sequitur. Minorityies have a claim on the same right, which they have. what it says. Farrow, Note 1): " In 2002 the United Nations Human Rights Commission refused to hear a complaint against the New Zealand Court of Appeal when the latter denied ( in Quilter VNew Zealand ( A.G. ) 1997 ICHRL 129 ) that the prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of loveual orientation implied a right to same love marriage. The attempt to establish such a right has first met with some success in Canada, through Canada's Charter, unlike new Zealand's Bill Of Rights, does not mention loveual orientation. " I claimed no such thing. I did state, correctly, that the reproductive capability is a qualification for marriage, though, in the interests of basic human rights, the state has no ability to " test " each applicant to marriage. Such a capability is presumed, as it does exist in the vast majority of heteroloveual marrieds. It seems that difference was too subtle for such rabid ideologues Where are yours ? Oh right... up your butt. rights " ? No ? Well, that makes your claim that it is relevent another Straw Woman... Heterophobe lie... Already done. Read the book. It makes the WHOLE case, and I am NOT going to type in dozens of it's pages. Now, get professional mental health care for your LYING. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.
|
