[GCFL-discuss] California Dreaming

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

My grandpa always referred to cars as a black hole. Or an Evil Necessity.

~Lance

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List
<gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:

>
> My late father, describing the expenses that come with car ownership,
> always said it was like having a second wife.  And doesn't everyone
> refer to a car as "she"?
>
> greenBubble
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcfl-discuss-bounces_milton.freund=siemens.com at gcfl.net
> [mailto:gcfl-discuss-
> Subject: [GCFL-discuss] California Dreaming
>
> In case anyone wants to hear my opinion on the latest high-profile
> decision from the Supreme Court of California,
>
> or even if nobody wants to hear it at all (that's what DELETE buttons
> were made for)...
>
> It seems to me that the political operatives who wrapped themselves in
> some semblance of Jesus and made "The Homosexual Agenda" a loud, if
> hollow, political issue, have set up the current run of decisions, from
> Massachusetts to California.
>
> How?
>
> The debate was shaped to give credence to the existence of distinct
> classes referenced as "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals." In fact, there
> are no such classes. There are men, and there are women. Most men find
> women attractive mates. Most women find men attractive mates. Some men
> find men attractive, and some women find women attractive.
>
> Nobody wrote marriage laws to "allow" heterosexuals to marry, or
> "forbid"
> homosexuals to marry. These "classes" didn't even register on anyone's
> radar screen when marriage laws were written. Homosexuality was a desire
> or an act, not a class of people. Naturally, the nature of the act
> requires people who share the desire to find each other, but that does
> not make them a legally protected class.
>
> Once the notion of distinct classes is accepted, application of Equal
> Protection of the Laws is almost inevitable. If the notion that there is
> a class of people called "homosexuals" is demolished, then the whole
> legal argument falls apart.
>
> If anyone had asked me, this argument probably could have swung one or
> two justices, but nobody did. Next we will have an argument that men
> have
> the right to marry their cars, and women have the right to marry their
> cars too.
>
> Siarlys
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message and any included attachments are from Siemens Medical
> Solutions
> and are intended only for the addressee(s).
> The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or
> otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding,
> printing,
> copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and
> may
> be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to
> believe
> you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message
> and
> notify the sender by e-mail with a copy to
> Central.SecurityOffice at siemens.com
>
> Thank you
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
>



-- 
No animals were harmed in the sending of this message.
However, a few million electrons were extremely inconvenienced...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20080518/c09e0a36/attachment.htm