Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay couple married after ruling (Toronto, Canada)
TheStar.com ^ | June 10, 2003 | TRACEY TYLER AND TRACY HUFFMAN

Posted on 06/11/2003 5:25:36 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP

Jun. 11, 2003. 06:25 AM
MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR
Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday. Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays and lesbians around the world."
 
Waiting to wed (June 10)  
Quebec court victory (Sept. 6)  
Court ruling favours same-sex marriage (July 13)  
Voices: Recognizing gay marriage  
Full text of the court's decision (14MB .pdf file)  
Arguments in favour of same-sex marriage  
Arguments against same-sex marriage  
The Web site of two of the plantiffs  
Gay couple married after ruling
Couple celebrates end of 20-year fight
Judges rewrite definition of marriage

TRACEY TYLER AND TRACY HUFFMAN
STAFF REPORTERS

Two gay men said "I do" yesterday, after Ontario's highest court said "they can."

Crown Attorney Michael Leshner and his long-time partner Michael Stark were married by Mr. Justice John Hamilton in a hastily arranged ceremony in the jury waiting room of a Toronto courthouse, as a crowd that included everyone from judges to janitors looked on.

Just hours before, the Ontario Court of Appeal rewrote the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, saying denying gays and lesbians the ability to marry offends their dignity, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and violates their equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A unanimous three-judge panel, made up of Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and justices James MacPherson and Eileen Gillese, then took the issue further than any other court in the world.

Gay and lesbian marriage became legal in Ontario, effective immediately.

"Michael Leshner, will you please repeat after me," said Hamilton, as he began the short, civil ceremony. "I do solemnly declare that I do not know of any lawful impediment why I may not be joined in matrimony to Michael Clifford Stark."

Both men repeated the declaration before pledging their vows.

"I Michael, take you Michael, to be my lawful wedded spouse," said Leshner. "To have and to hold, from this day forward, whatever circumstances or experiences life may hold for us."

Hamilton, an Ontario Superior Court judge, asked both men to place rings on each other's fingers, then made it official.

"By the power vested in me by the Marriage Act, I pronounce you Michael, and you Michael — affectionately known as `the Michaels' — to be lawfully wedded spouses."

"You are now married," said Hamilton, who later said it was "an honour" to perform the ceremony.

Leshner, 55, and Stark, 45, kissed and popped champagne.

Speaking to reporters, Leshner said he regards the court's judgment as, "Day One for millions of gays and lesbians around the world" and the culmination of a personal 20-year battle to end "legally sanctioned homophobia."

"I wanted to put a stake through that sucker," he said.

His 90-year-old mother, Ethel, who beamed and sang in her wheelchair, drew her satisfaction on a smaller scale.

"I feel wonderful, if he does. And I'm sure he does — take a look at his face," she said.

"I can't `rah, rah, rah.' I'm not the type of person to do that," she said. "I'm just happy my son is happy — I know he's getting a nice guy."

While Leshner and Stark are believed to be the first gay couple to wed after same-sex marriage became legal yesterday, they may not be the first gay Ontario couple to be legally married. That distinction appears to fall to two same-sex couples who were married in a double ceremony at Toronto's Metropolitan CommunityChurch in January, 2001.

The appeal court ordered the province to register marriage certificates issued to those couples, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell and Elaine and Anne Vautour. The judges also ordered the clerk of the City of Toronto to issue marriage licences to Leshner and Stark and six other couples whose licence applications were held in abeyance pending a ruling by the courts. The province and the city told the judges during a hearing in April that they would abide by whatever the appeal court decided.

Less clear is where the federal government stands.



Justice Minister Martin Cauchon told reporters yesterday he believes MPs should have a say in the debate about same-sex marriage, but the government also sees where courts across the country are heading on the issue.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal and a Quebec Superior Court judge have also ruled the common law definition of marriage violates the Charter's equality provisions, but didn't go as far as Ontario in immediately extending marriage to same-sex couples, preferring instead to give Parliament until July, 2004 to change the law.

The Ontario Court of Appeal said there's no need to wait: Changing the definition of marriage, effective immediately, won't create any public harm.

Federal justice department spokesperson Dorette Pollard said the government has until Sept. 9 to decide whether to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the meantime, the government does not have the option of seeking a court injunction to stop same-sex marriages from taking place, she said.

If a further appeal to the Supreme Court is in the cards, it could return to the Court of Appeal to ask for a stay of yesterday's ruling, effectively putting it in suspension, Pollard said.

She was unable to say how that would affect same-sex marriages that have already taken place.

Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, had no difficulty expressing an opinion on yesterday's decision.

By reformulating the definition of marriage, the appeal court ignored "centuries of precedent" and rendered "ordinary Canadians' views irrelevant," said Derek Rogusky, a vice-president of Focus on the Family, whose interests were represented by The Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario, an intervenor in the case.

In its decision yesterday, written not by one judge in particular but collectively as "the court," the appeal panel changed the definition of marriage from being "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman," to "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

A person's sense of dignity and self worth can only be enhanced by the recognition that society gives to marriage and denying people in same-sex relationships access to that most basic of institutions violates their dignity, the court said.

"The ability to marry, and to thereby participate in this fundamental societal institution, is something that most Canadians take for granted. Same-sex couples do not; they are denied access to this institution simply on the basis of their sexual orientation."

Preventing same-sex couples from marrying perpetuates the view that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships and not worthy of the same respect and recognition as heterosexual couples, the court added.

It was ruling on an appeal from an Ontario Divisional Court decision last year. The Divisional Court said the common law definition of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union was unconstitutional, but decided 2-1 to leave it up to Parliament to rewrite the law by July, 2004.

The dissenting judge in that case, Mr. Justice Harry LaForme, who would have changed the definition immediately, attended yesterday's ceremony.

In its 60-page decision yesterday, the judges systematically disposed of Ottawa's arguments for preserving marriage as a heterosexual domain, saying they were filled with irrelevancies, stereotypes and "circular reasoning."

The government argued that marriage has always been understood as a special kind of monogamous institution that brings the sexes together for the purposes of procreating, raising children and companionship.

That isn't something that lawmakers dreamed up; it predates the law, the government said.

Who invented the concept of marriage doesn't matter, the court said; What does is how gays and lesbians fare under a legal regime that excludes them from the institution.

The government was avoiding the main issue by arguing that marriage "just is" heterosexual and benefits society as a whole, the court said.

"The couples are not seeking to abolish the institution of marriage," wrote the judges. "They are seeking access to it."

With files from Mary Gordon



TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; gays; homosexualagenda; ick; marriage; omg; toronto; yuck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last
Oh, great !! They say I do, but I say Yuck!!!

I heard this on the radio a few minutes ago. I can't believe it's not posted already. (I did search).

1 posted on 06/11/2003 5:25:36 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda

More bump images HERE !

2 posted on 06/11/2003 5:27:12 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Can't they all just get back in the closet? Why must we be asked to celebrate a personality disorder?
3 posted on 06/11/2003 5:31:41 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; onyx; SpookBrat; Republican Wildcat; Howlin; Fred Mertz; dixiechick2000; SusanUSA; ...
Holy Cow !! I don't know what else to say.

Gay couple married after ruling (Toronto, Canada)

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR
Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."



Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.


4 posted on 06/11/2003 5:33:28 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
The ability to marry, and to thereby participate in this fundamental societal institution

Go ahead you dirty perverts. Further the human race and have children.

All future rulings toward these vile, dirty animals should be based on what I think is a fundamental reason for the union in the first place.

TO HAVE CHILDREN AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARD THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION You dirty perverts use you sex tools and stick them in every hole that will produce nothing. Your even to stupid to realize if every one would practice you perverse cult practices you would eliminate the human race. What bunch low life, stinking bottom feeders.

5 posted on 06/11/2003 5:34:17 AM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Yuck comes to mind.
6 posted on 06/11/2003 5:34:34 AM PDT by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I could have got along nicely without that picture. Yuck!
7 posted on 06/11/2003 5:35:45 AM PDT by Aeronaut ("The wicked are always surprised to find nobility in the good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
***My Eyes***

I'm blind!

UGH!
8 posted on 06/11/2003 5:35:58 AM PDT by dansangel (America - love it, support it or LEAVE it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Sick fudge eaters
9 posted on 06/11/2003 5:36:45 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Just hours before, the Ontario Court of Appeal rewrote the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, saying denying gays and lesbians the ability to marry offends their dignity,i>

Lets talk about the dignity of a man on his hands and knees with another man jamming his.... Well you get the point.

10 posted on 06/11/2003 5:38:58 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
I whish you would quit waffling on the issue an express an opinion. :)
11 posted on 06/11/2003 5:39:37 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Aeronaut; Bahbah
Yep. Yuck was my comment too.

hehe! Sorry 'bout the pic, Aeronaut. I am still in shock, and awe.

12 posted on 06/11/2003 5:40:50 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing

13 posted on 06/11/2003 5:40:57 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Then, the happy couple celebrated by going cruising in the bars and picking up a few more guys!

Gay men are not interested in a monogamous relationship. They say that themselves. They get very angry when anyone suggests that the best thing to do is to be in a monogamous relationship! So, this "Marriage" thing is just a farce.

The only reason they want to get "married" is to force the rest of the world to accept their abonormal behavior. They know they are abonormal, but think it is everyone else who makes them feel that way. They have the misguided opinion that acceptence by others will make them feel more normal. That the image of a normal homelife will make them feel more normal. Fact is, they are not normal, and none of these things will change how they feel!



They are trying to legislate immorality!
14 posted on 06/11/2003 5:41:02 AM PDT by tuckrdout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
hehe ! A picture's worth a thousand words. I couldn't think of anywhere near that many words. :O)
15 posted on 06/11/2003 5:42:31 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
offends their dignity

They offend their own human dignity with their behavior. An by the way, I am not homophobic, I am homodisgustive.

16 posted on 06/11/2003 5:43:10 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
"Michael....you taste like colon".
17 posted on 06/11/2003 5:43:28 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Next in line, pedophiles, incestuous types, group sex, animal lovers, etc. Who says that they are any less deserving than these two guys?
18 posted on 06/11/2003 5:46:35 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
So, what I wondering, is if they moved to the United States, would this be a legal union in the USA? Can American homosexuals go up there to get married and then force our government to recongnise this union? Is that the new scheme?
19 posted on 06/11/2003 5:46:41 AM PDT by tuckrdout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
... would this be a legal union in the USA?

**
I don't know anything about the law, but everything I have read before would indicate that it would not be recognized here unless a state had some sort of reciprocity law in place. (I was hoping a bunch of them would move to Canada because of this.)
20 posted on 06/11/2003 5:54:40 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I couldn't think of anywhere near that many words. :O)

*I* can - and they are *ALL* unprintable!

21 posted on 06/11/2003 5:55:20 AM PDT by dansangel (America - love it, support it or LEAVE it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
Fact is, they are not normal..

Exactly
22 posted on 06/11/2003 5:57:03 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
l just looked at a poll in the Toronto newspaper The National Post, 80% of Canadians are against this change in law.l wonder if now that the definition of marriage has been changed will polygamy be accepted as well.
23 posted on 06/11/2003 6:04:15 AM PDT by lindsay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
Texas doesn't recognize same sex marriages period. In fact, our Governor Rick Perry just signed a new law a couple of weeks ago specifically spelling it out. We didn't NEED that law because it was already covered in the statutes. Some of the LIBS hated that too. I felt their pain - NOT !!!!
24 posted on 06/11/2003 6:04:23 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
*I* can - and they are *ALL* unprintable!

hehe ! I understand.

25 posted on 06/11/2003 6:05:46 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I'm wondering what country we will be forced to invade first in the future, Canada or Mexico.
26 posted on 06/11/2003 6:15:45 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse (For or against us.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Freedom.

Gays have existed since the time of the Bible.

What is your solution? To eradicate them all as Hitler tried to do?

To spend billions of dollars on fruitless (Pardon the pun) endeavours to therapeutically turn them into heterosexuals?

Give them their own island somewhere?

Make them watch Clint Eastwood movies until they turned macho?

Live and let live, they're not harming anyone, I hope they're happy, isn't that what everyone wants?

Would Jesus approve of the frankly boorish comments I've read in this thread? Afterall, he befriended Mary Magdelaine, and spent time with lepers.

27 posted on 06/11/2003 6:55:46 AM PDT by IvanT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IvanT
Gays have existed since the time of the Bible.

So has murder, theft, and lying. Sin is sin.

What is your solution? To eradicate them all as Hitler tried to do?

No, the issue here is that marrige exists between a man and a woman.

To spend billions of dollars on fruitless (Pardon the pun) endeavours to therapeutically turn them into heterosexuals?

No, the issue here is that marrige exists between a man and a woman. Give them their own island somewhere?

Make them watch Clint Eastwood movies until they turned macho?

No, the issue here is that marrige exists between a man and a woman.

Live and let live, they're not harming anyone, I hope they're happy, isn't that what everyone wants?

No, the issue here is that marrige exists between a man and a woman.

Would Jesus approve of the frankly boorish comments I've read in this thread? Afterall, he befriended Mary Magdelaine, and spent time with lepers.

Jesus (as the Son of God) also wrote the scriptures condemning homosexuality. Inconvienient to your argument, but true nonetheless. Also, Jesus also said to Mary Magdalene: "Now go, and sin no more.

28 posted on 06/11/2003 7:10:31 AM PDT by SkyPilot ("Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers." ----- Jayson Blair)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
ummmmm, yeah...ok

I guess next animals will be able to wed and have the same benefits as traditional married couples.

29 posted on 06/11/2003 7:18:15 AM PDT by cherry_bomb88 (Are you on the right side of the wrong issue or the wrong side of the right issue?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
I don't know if animals will wed, but my neighbor keeps saying her first husband was a pig.
30 posted on 06/11/2003 7:21:16 AM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot; IvanT; tame
Well said, SP

See, Ivan, you're missing the point.....MARRIAGE EXISTS BETWEEN A MAN & A WOMAN

If they want to partake in fornication in their own bedrooms, so be it....just DO NOT force it on us to accept it as normal and deserving of the same rights as marriage in the traditional sense....what's next??? Accepting child molestors???? Those have existed since the dawn of time too...so, now we're supposed to just accept it?

I truly believe in the phrase "love the sinner hate the sin", I don't have any contempt or loathing for them as people, I do, however, have strong contempt for what they do, it is wrong....it always has been and it always will be.

If they want to be gay, great, but do it knowing it is unacceptable to the majority of society and therefore suffer the consequences of your actions. If you hold yourself out to be different from the "norm", expect to be treated as such.

31 posted on 06/11/2003 7:23:55 AM PDT by cherry_bomb88 (Are you on the right side of the wrong issue or the wrong side of the right issue?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: breakem
ROTFL....mine was a donkey's rear end! (read a-hole)

Wait, what am I say "was"....change that to still is.

32 posted on 06/11/2003 7:25:03 AM PDT by cherry_bomb88 (Are you on the right side of the wrong issue or the wrong side of the right issue?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: breakem
My first girlfriend said I was a tiger.
33 posted on 06/11/2003 7:26:55 AM PDT by SkyPilot ("Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers." ----- Jayson Blair)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
...but I say Yuck!!!

That was my first reaction.

34 posted on 06/11/2003 7:29:19 AM PDT by blackbart1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
Not in Nebraska. We have an amendment in our state constitution that recognizes marraige only as a union between a man and a woman. This was a petition initiative that ended up on the ballot and passed at general election with over 70% of the vote. The usual cast of sodomites have been screaming about it ever since. It'll end up before the Nebraska Supreme Court (God, please help us) sometime within the next 2 years, I'm guessing.

Hat-Trick

35 posted on 06/11/2003 7:29:28 AM PDT by Hat-Trick (only criminals, their advocates, and tyrants need fear guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
The next types of marriages to be legalized in Canada:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926941/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926810/posts
36 posted on 06/11/2003 7:30:43 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Congratulations to Bruce and Antoine.
37 posted on 06/11/2003 7:30:54 AM PDT by Conservative til I die (They say anti-Catholicism is the thinking man's anti-Semitism; that's an insult to thinking men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hat-Trick
We have an amendment in our state constitution that recognizes marraige only as a union between a man and a woman.

California has a similar provision. It hasn't even proven to be a speed bump for gay activists. They are pushing a measure through lawmakers that would grant legal recognition to same-sex unions, i.e., calling it something other than "marriage" but amounting to the same thing.

38 posted on 06/11/2003 7:36:13 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
Next in line, pedophiles, incestuous types, group sex, animal lovers, etc. Who says that they are any less deserving than these two guys?

EXACTLY !

That picture deserves a barf alert if any ever did.

39 posted on 06/11/2003 7:45:32 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
I'm wondering what country we will be forced to invade first in the future, Canada or Mexico.

Insanity on both sides.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right . . .

40 posted on 06/11/2003 7:45:54 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88; breakem
I guess next animals will be able to wed and have the same benefits as traditional married couples.

Re #29-30:

Can you believe it ??:

Dogs marry in Connecticut


DERBY, Conn. - Call it puppy love.

Two dogs - Tatiana Anjelica and Tyson Beckford Spak - exchanged vows and slobbery kisses Sunday on the Derby Green. The bride even wore a little garter, slipped over her paw.

The bridegroom wore a top hat and tuxedo.

Excerpted. Click link for full article.
Excerpted - click for full article ^
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6699-2003Jun3.html



ROFL !!

41 posted on 06/11/2003 8:00:37 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo

Whoa ! (The second link)

Thanks for the links.

Excerpt:


(CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).


42 posted on 06/11/2003 8:31:34 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I wish the new (old) couple the best.
43 posted on 06/11/2003 8:35:08 AM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
Thanks for clarifying that Cherry_bomb88!
44 posted on 06/11/2003 8:43:47 AM PDT by IvanT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
Amen!
45 posted on 06/11/2003 8:56:00 AM PDT by tame (If I must be the victim of a criminal, please let it be Catwoman! Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lindsay
l just looked at a poll in the Toronto newspaper The National Post, 80% of Canadians are against this change in law.

it wasn't in the newspaper, it was a non-scientific poll on their website. are you trying to be deceptive or are you just dim?

the AP story reports: "opinion polls indicate a slight majority of Canadians favor legalizing same-sex marriages"

46 posted on 06/11/2003 9:22:12 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
ROTFL...you are too much, meekie!
47 posted on 06/11/2003 10:39:03 AM PDT by cherry_bomb88 (Are you on the right side of the wrong issue or the wrong side of the right issue?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
after pet cemetaries, could marraiges be far behind?
48 posted on 06/11/2003 10:47:23 AM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
touche
49 posted on 06/11/2003 10:47:42 AM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
:O)
50 posted on 06/11/2003 10:56:39 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson