From: Bill Graham on

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote in message
> On 5/4/2010 7:02 AM, Peter wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>> news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)
>>> Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons should
>>> be allowed to participate in it. <snip>
>> In what State are felons not permitted to marry?
> Everyone _is_ allowed to participate. The problem the gays have is that
> they don't like any of the people with whom they are allowed to
> participate.

No. The problem is that when the gays find someone who wants to participate
in marriage with them, their government forbids it. This is the fault of
their government, and not them or their prospective partners. As was pointed
out to me above, even convicted felons have the right to marry. but not law
abiding gays!

From: tony cooper on
On Wed, 5 May 2010 10:00:44 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl(a)> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:12:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote:
>>>What do you believe to be the basis for the state having an interest in
>> The basis is the law of the state. To be married, the couple must
>> apply to the state for a license to do so. If the state won't grant a
>> marriage license, then the couple cannot legally marry.
>ROFL. That is just soooooooooooo gloriously circular.

That is quite often the purpose of a law.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 4 May 2010 19:50:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>

>"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>> news:TZadnWEmZvyvJ0LWnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)
>>> At least you have a home, since many of your political brothers are also
>>> atheists, and tolerant of same. But I am truly a, "Man without a
>>> country". My conservative heroes, like Rush, are intolerant of atheists,
>>> and insult us on a regular basis.
>> That says it all: Rush, the entertainer, by his onw admission - hero -
>> great oxymoron. <\begin sarcastic tag> You have really proven your ability
>> to think and analyze. <\end sarcastic tag>
>Ho hum.....Kill the messenger.....So what else is new? Tell you what,
>Jack....When you can make 10% as much money as Rush makes every year in your
>entire life, then you can reasonably afford to disparage him....Otherwise, I
>believe I'll just go with his stuff, pal......

So your standard for believability is annual income.
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> Peter wrote:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>> news:2010050409111538165-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
>>> said:
>>>> I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but
>>>> I'm thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read
>>>> faithfully every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts,
>>>> infuriating them all the
>>>> more by raking in millions while aggravating them.
>>>> Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the liberals
>>>> foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms,
>>>> which is a delight
>>>> to see.
>>> However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be
>>> left scratching one's head in bewilderment.
>> But she is one good looking woman.
> Even better looking is Monica Crowley. She's usually on O'Reilly's show
> Tuesdays, doing the good fight against the liberal Alan Colmes -- who is
> actually her brother-in-law, though this is rarely mentioned.
> Monica is also a regular on The McLaughlin Group, weekends. (I get it
> Sundays on a couple of different channels, though I understand it's
> Saturdays elsewhere. These are PBS channels and evidently each station
> arranges its own schedule.)
> Monica is really a knockout, as well as being very knowledgeable,
> articulate and quick on her feet in an argument. Try to catch her some
> weekend.
> She also does a regular column Wednesdays in the Washington Times.
Trying to get liberals to actually give some credence to a conservative is a
complete waste of time, Neil. "If it appears on Fox News, it has to be
wrong," is their battle cry. Actually listening to what is said, and
refuting any part of it, is beyond their comprehension.

From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:32:15 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)> wrote:

>Some States have tried to ban driving with the face covered, but political
>pleasure from Muslims has prevented such enactment. While not wishing ill on
>anybody, it will take some major accident to give the political courage to
>enact a ban that will prevent more such accidents. I am waiting to see what
>happens if they commit a traffic violation and the driver refuses to unveil.

I have not seen anything to that effect. Some Departments of Motor
Vehicles - including some in Florida, the one I live in - have tried
to require that a woman cannot wear a burqa or niqab when being
photographed for her driver's license. The driver's license photo is
supposed to be a form of identification, and the burqa or niqab
conceals the identity.

One woman in Florida - Sultaana Freeman - obtained a Florida driver's
license with a photo of her in niqab, but her license was later
suspended pending a new photograph of her with her face exposed.

There is no law in Florida that prevents her from driving while
wearing a niqab, though. First, though, she has to get a license.

As David Littleboy pointed out in another post, the law can be

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida