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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: MeeknMing
Genesis 19

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.

"My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."

"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house.

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."

When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"

But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."

He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar.) By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities-and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.


51 posted on 06/11/2003 10:59:43 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IvanT
Live and let live, they're not harming anyone.

They're harming children, adults with little to no moral sense, and themselves.

For example, they can adopt children, legally.

This practice, normalized by law, sets a horrible example for all children, not just the poor children who will be placed under their care.

Finally, they're harming themselves by engaging in unnatural and intrinsically evil acts. This physical and mental harm is ratified and normalized by law.

52 posted on 06/11/2003 11:08:50 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Thanks.

More bump images HERE !

53 posted on 06/11/2003 11:19:28 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 51 | View Replies]

To: IvanT
Hitler's inner circle was homosexual. Rohem who broght hitler to light and was the man behind the man was a notorious homosexual. There were 10000 people arrested for violation of the nazi homosexual laws. Of those most were criminals who were caught in other acts, political adversaries, and false accusations for political gain. Hitler was a horror but his socialism tolerance words agree with the homosexual rights movement far more than any conservative movement. Remember the nazis were regressive socialist darwinians not right wing conservatives.
54 posted on 06/11/2003 11:28:46 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
An by the way, I am not homophobic, I am homodisgustive.

Rule #1: NEVER apologize for being against homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. It will look like you are trying to appease homosexuals and their sympathizers/defenders, which is something they neither need nor deserve.

Moreover, why in the name of God should we have to pay lip service to people who knowingly and willingly engage in behavior they know is abnormal, immoral, and dangerous(and if that is not enough, they are openly going after our children)?

Rule #2: There is no such thing as homophobia. Never has been. Never will be.

55 posted on 06/11/2003 11:56:33 AM PDT by Houmatt (Real conservatives don't defend kiddy porn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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

You mean like the ones who surrounded Lot's home and subsequently tried to break in for the sole purpose of having sex with Lot's son?

Ivan, sweetie, THEY WERE STRUCK BLIND, KILLED AND SENT TO HELL BY GOD!

In fact, homosexuality is one the few sins to be specifically condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

Take the time to actually read the Bible instead of just paying reference to it.

56 posted on 06/11/2003 12:05:41 PM PDT by Houmatt (Real conservatives don't defend kiddy porn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I was trying to illustrate that homosexuals don't elicit fear but disgust instead. Homophobia is their invention. A device to generated some badly need self worth.
57 posted on 06/11/2003 12:15:12 PM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Thanks for the heads up!
58 posted on 06/11/2003 2:07:53 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yall
For any of you legal beagles out there, here is the link to the court ruling regarding this decision:

Halpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.


I got an e-mail alert today and that was in it.

59 posted on 06/11/2003 2:48:57 PM 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: yall
Related article:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2906422


Canada Court Redefines Marriage to Include Gays
Tue June 10, 2003 11:38 AM ET
OTTAWA (Reuters) - An Ontario court set aside the heterosexual definition of marriage on Tuesday with immediate effect and ordered the Toronto city clerk to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples who had applied for them.

The decision was one of three decisions expected this year by appeals courts in provinces across the country, and it was not clear whether the federal government would appeal it or ask for a stay of the decision.

A decision in May by a British Columbia appeals court had given the federal government until July 2004 to change its law to include homosexual marriages, and Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said he was mulling an appeal.

But the Ontario court ruled that to wait would deny the couples their constitutional rights, and it redefined the common law definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

In so doing it substituted "two persons" for "one man and one woman."

The three-person court ruled that the law limiting marriage to heterosexuals violated the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Canadian Constitution.

 RELATED ARTICLES
Toronto to Start Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses
"The common law definition of marriage is inconsistent with the Charter to the extent that it excludes same-sex couples," the court ruled.

Cauchon had asked the House of Commons justice committee to conduct hearings across the country on what should be done about the definition of marriage, and the committee is currently deliberating possible recommendations.

Committee member Vic Toews of the opposition Canadian Alliance, an opponent of gay marriage, asked Cauchon last week to launch an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court so that the lower courts do not end up preempting what he said was an issue for Parliament to decide.


60 posted on 06/11/2003 2:56:15 PM 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: lindsay
80% of Canadians are against this change in law.

They are only citizens and voters. Their opinion is not relevant.

61 posted on 06/11/2003 3:05:03 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I am very confused on one aspect of homosexual "marriage". We all know what it means to consummate a heterosexual marriage. Homosexuals have only acts of sodomy available to them. So with 2 males,is consummation anal sex or oral sex? Can the "marriage" be annulled for nonconsummation if one of the 2 participants is always on the receiving or giving end or turns down the other participant for a certain form of sodomy? Same with 2 females. If one refuses to wear the strap-on or be the recipient of it, or if one is only on the giving or receiving end of oral, can the "marriage" be annulled? Has this been thought out in the US or Canada?
62 posted on 06/11/2003 4:09:17 PM PDT by sensie8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Would you stop with the font dramatics?
You are not impressing anyone.
63 posted on 06/11/2003 4:41:23 PM PDT by georgeisdaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sensie8; yall
Gay/Lesbian marriages are not recognized in this country. There are Liberals trying to make it otherwise.

Check out this petition and let me know what you think:

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/


Help Save Marriage!

The Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer that homosexual marriage is legal. Because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the U.S. Constitution, that means that every other state may be forced to accept the legalization of homosexual marriage by recognizing the Massachusetts law.

Homosexual marriage will soon be a reality if you fail to get involved! Sign the following petition supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment. (H.J. Res. 56)


»A Petition to Members of Congress«

Traditional marriage between a man and woman is the God-ordained building block of the family and bedrock of a civil society. Therefore, I urge your support of the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage between one woman and one man. The amendment states:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

64 posted on 06/11/2003 5:09:41 PM 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 62 | View Replies]

To: sensie8
Oh, btw, welcome to FreeRepublic.com !!
65 posted on 06/11/2003 5:12:05 PM 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 62 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Thanks for the welcome and intro. The petition is excellent and I have signed and forwarded to family and friends. I only hope gets through Congress without any liberals putting up roadblocks.
66 posted on 06/11/2003 5:31:40 PM PDT by sensie8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
(BLECHYEEEHATCHCUHOOFAA!)

Excuse me, I had to finish vomiting.

Oh...the filth and degeneracy being spawned under the psychotic leftist government of Canada...

EEEEEEwwwwww! (I still am shuddering and got the willies from that picture...Good God...)

67 posted on 06/11/2003 5:34:54 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Where are you all coming up with this nauseating imagery? I think y'all are spending far too much time on sites that would have stuff like that posted...

Please...enough with this already...the article and photo are bad enough...

68 posted on 06/11/2003 5:36:29 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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

*sigh* Tired old argument #3572. Animals can't consent. Humans can.

P.S. For many centuries, in a "traditional married couple," the wife was the property of the husband. I do hope you're not asking to return to that particular tradition.
69 posted on 06/11/2003 5:38:27 PM PDT by jde1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: georgeisdaman
Would you stop with the font dramatics? You are not impressing anyone.

You mean I am not impressing you, a newbie.

Since I am not posting the way I am to impress you I could really care less what you think.

70 posted on 06/11/2003 5:42:42 PM PDT by Houmatt (Real conservatives don't defend kiddy porn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jde1953
as a man I was hoping we'd return to the old Mormom tradition. LOL!
71 posted on 06/11/2003 5:44:42 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
hehe! Sorry 'bout that. I probably should have posted this one instead ??

I used to have that pic a long time ago, but the URL died.

I found it again today on this thread:

Gays Flock to Divorce Court

72 posted on 06/11/2003 5:47:23 PM 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 67 | View Replies]

To: Hat-Trick
bump
73 posted on 06/11/2003 5:57:15 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Now that a Canadian court ruled in favor of homosexual marriage, it would be only a matter of time before some Muslims and Mormoms demand the right to polygamy.
74 posted on 06/11/2003 6:01:11 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
morMOMS works for me
75 posted on 06/11/2003 6:02:25 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jde1953; unspun
P.S. For many centuries, in a "traditional married couple," the wife was the property of the husband. I do hope you're not asking to return to that particular tradition.

Biblically, the wife was never the "property" of the husband.

Hey, they have every *right* in our society as it stands today to live together...but the law has always been the law.

Question...you answered my "jest" about animals....but not child molestors and children....or even 25 year old men and 14 year old girls....a 14 year old can "consent"...should we make that acceptable and legal?????

Consent is not always the basis of legality.

76 posted on 06/11/2003 9:07:14 PM 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 69 | View Replies]

To: sultan88
What's your take on all this????
77 posted on 06/11/2003 9:09:44 PM 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 69 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
Don't look & it will go away.
78 posted on 06/12/2003 4:43:01 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 68 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
"Question...you answered my "jest" about animals....but not child molestors and children....or even 25 year old men and 14 year old girls....a 14 year old can "consent"...should we make that acceptable and legal?????"

a) Child molestation is a crime of violence. Marriage isn't, or shouldn't be. You can't compare apples and bicycles.

b) Should we make marrige between a 25 y/o and 14 y/o legal? My personal opinion, no. Minimum age in most states is 16, I think 18 is better, personally. But that's just me. [I'm against a 14 year old boy marrying a 25 year old woman, too, btw.]

c) Doesn't it strike you as odd that age of consent and minimum age of marriage are different?

d) I won't be doing much reading of FR in the next few weeks; I'm assisting at summer school (local community college) and have a ton of writing to do, so don't be offended if I don't answer immediately.
79 posted on 06/12/2003 7:52:45 PM PDT by jde1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jde1953
Just one question for you......why do YOU think it should be legal?
80 posted on 06/12/2003 9:24:50 PM 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 79 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
"Just one question for you......why do YOU think it should be legal?"

I presume you're asking about homosexual marriage here.
I view marriage as a civil contract, not a religious one. (After all, the state issues the marriage licenses, not the church.) I can't immediately think of any other civil contract that is forbidden solely on the basis of sexuality.

It would also solve the following logical disconnect:

Heterosexual: You gays are so promiscuous. It's disgusting. Why can't you form stable relationships?

Gay: My partner and I have been monogamously together for ten years. We'd like official recognition of it, as there is for the relationship between you and your wife.

Heterosexual: No! That's disgusting!

Gay: So if we're promiscuous, it's disgusting, and if we are in a stable relationship (which is what you are asking us to do) it's disgusting.... [*logic circuits burn out*]
81 posted on 06/13/2003 4:26:34 PM PDT by jde1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jde1953; unspun
My logic does not follow that...I know many gays that have been in longer relationships than heterosexuals and I know many heters (men & women) that are PIGS about fidelity and openly sleezey.

What they seek, my FRiend, is not mere "legal contracts"...after all, if that's all you wanted, you CAN have "joint partnership" contracts legally drawn up by lawyers in most states....kind of a "pre-nup" type agreement that spells out who gets what if there's a split...that can be done for hetero or gay couples. No need for recognition of "Holy Matrimony"....there is nothing "holy" about gay marriages.

82 posted on 06/13/2003 4:58:13 PM 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 81 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88; jde1953
Gay unions might be about something that sounds a lot like the first syllable in "holy" but that is the only connection that comes to mind.
83 posted on 06/13/2003 5:00:39 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: unspun
pretty much my thought....was looking for your wisdom on how to combat this.
84 posted on 06/13/2003 5:03:53 PM 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 83 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
pretty much my thought....was looking for your wisdom on how to combat this.

Some kind of salty firestorm from the heavens worked a few thousand years ago, at the southern end of what is now the Dead Sea.

85 posted on 06/13/2003 5:08:29 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
But now, well... speaking the truth in love, for as long as the Lord's servant in 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 2 holds out, seems to be the point. Also not settling for lies against the truth in our culture and it's politics.
86 posted on 06/13/2003 5:11:23 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: cherry_bomb88
"CAN have "joint partnership" contracts legally drawn up by lawyers in most states....kind of a "pre-nup" type agreement that spells out who gets what if there's a split...that can be done for hetero or gay couples. No need for recognition of "Holy Matrimony"....there is nothing "holy" about gay marriages."

1) Note that, in order to get the same legal standing which comes automatically with marriage, a gay couple would have to go to the time and expense of filling out tens of agreements.

2) You prefer holy matrimony, which you are free to do. Please be aware that the law does not make such a distinction. A couple can go to the county courthouse and get married without a clergyman anywhere in the vicinity; their marriage is perfectly legal. Two atheists can get married, and their marriage is also legal. Two Wiccans can get married by a Wiccan clergyman (whom you might not recognize as being "holy"), but their marriage is still 100% valid.
87 posted on 06/16/2003 9:48:44 PM PDT by jde1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


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