----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Tyranny
> At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote > >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is > >making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as > >you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. > > In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of > repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and > opinions are not credible. > > On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are > present in other sources, then I am merely "running with the pack." > > Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome > here as credible participants of Brin-L. What is your preference John? That I give an honest account of what I see or think I see. Tell you when I disagree with you and why. Discuss in an open manner. or Pretend I agree with you when I don't. or Ignore you and pretend you are not here. I know that some of the things I said might be unpleasant for someone on the receiving end, but they were not things said with the intent of being cruel, they were my personal estimation of the tone, intent, and source of your current rhetoric. Indeed, you could have turned the same questions toward me and I would have had to give some sort of answer. But what you have done is ignore the question. What I really expected was for you to tell why you believe the way you do, and why your opinions are different than Joe Homophobe Bigot on the street. (Not that I think there is any legitimate comparison between you and Joe Homophobe Bigot). I really hope i have *not* made you feel unwelcome and if you do feel that way, I hope you will give some thought to what I am saying. I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say.... USENET. > > >I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, > >and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly > >worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement > >of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction > >based in fear. > > Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the > Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a > FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico > and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at > *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. > > Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days > now that this "semicolon" delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* > handing out faux marriage certificates. > Well: <news> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040228/D810BC3G0.html Calif. Court Refuses to Stop Gay Weddings In yet another setback to conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court declined a request to immediately stop San Francisco from marrying gay couples and to nullify the weddings already performed. </news> xponent It Continues Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
