"Defense" of marriage act

http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/main1.cfm?categoryid=1&topicid=1&infopageid=261


i will have to do a search for the age of concent laws but unless they have changed SINCE i read them last your wrong about the differences

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reguarding my own state's laws concerning homosexuality (For reference that would be Arizona), I have found a few things so far.

First off I haven't found our laws reguarding homosexual marriages, yet, as there is a myriad of sites both private and governmental, which only bother giving a few spacific laws that are on the books, reguarding certain specalized areas, such as wildlife conservation, or zoning and constructin, but I have found this little tidbit in some legislation about how AZ schools should handle sex education:

"C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:

1. Promotes a homosexual <s>life-style</s> LIFESTYLE.

2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative <s>life-style</s> LIFESTYLE.

3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."

There are words crossed out, because this is a recent revision of the legislation, inwhich they aparently felt that life style needed to be made one word and written in all caps.

I think that shows a bit about how this state's government views homosexuality, the fact that they want to name it loudly and obnoxiously name it as a "LIFESTYLE" as opposed to "Sexual orientation".

This particular bit of legislation essentialy says that homosexuality will NOT be discussed at all in sex education in Arizona's schools. What a wonderfully caring and enlightend society whe have going for us here, it makes my heart swell with pride to know that my government is serving me in this respect. (Note the sarcasm)

(Click here to see the source of this information)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here we go. The following is the state of Arizona's legal stance on homosexual marriages, one short line, spelled out quite simply and clearly:

Title 25-101 point C. Of Arizona's Marital and domsetic relations legislation: C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.

Click here to view my source.

Is anyone else filled with the urge to head down to their state legislature building, bend over some state congressmen, and urge them to get in touch with their inner rainbow, as you fuck them violently up the ass?

I know I am.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And now, because I'm really tired, and my desision making is impared, I shall share with you a little log of a chat I had with a friend of mine tonight, which is somewhat relavant to this topic, enjoy! And keep in mind that this all took place from 1:30-2:00AM, so cut me some slack on spelling, hehe.

Anyway I guess that what I'm trying to say there, is that through denying it's citizens basic human rights, it can turn them into a criminal a killer or a corpse. It's just bad business any way you look at it.

Oh, and one other thing, looking over these state legal doccuments, why does it seem that it's always article C which deals denying rights to homosexuals? There's gotta' be some sort of secret plot code or conspiracy that I'm missing out on here, I'll have to do more research, I bet there's something devious behind it.

 

actualy, i checked a few months ago, the ages for straight, lesbian and gay sex were 16, 16 and 18 respectively.

however i checked again last week and it seems now there all 17.

 

thats from vic legal aid

what are you on?

 

Haha, Australian Legislators are trying to prevent some pretty wacky situations here. Getting imaginative with the laws, that's for sure.

 

i think it has to do with if one person lies about there identity and so gets married to someone else then that other person cant be charged when the marrige becomes void

 

Ahh yes, I guess it could be handy to cover that aspect. Everything I could think of ended up sounding like the premise for a sitcom, heh.

 

Failure of the left

I thought the DMA sounded like a good idea at the time. I figured, "Let the religious people have their marraiges." After all, registries and so forth were coming into fashion, and I find marriage an abominable institution, anyway.

But when Clinton didn't follow up with a master stroke, the left was unfortunately so dazzled by their alleged golden boy that we didn't really pick up the ball and run with it. When the GOP turned around and wrote new tax legislation intended to exclude homosexuals from its benefit, everybody knew that we'd missed an opportunity to strike after the heart of sycophantic religious devotion in the US.

Go ahead and blame the left for this contribution. But don't blame it all on us. It never would have come up at all if it wasn't for a bunch of pathetic Christians who wanted to do as much malice as possible upon the least of His brethren (Matthew 25).

And so they did unto Him.

I note the failure of the left here specifically because the failure of Christianity and the right is inherent in the subject, and there's no need to review their brand of hatred unless someone would like to pretend confusion.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, right I don't blame the democrats for this bill, it wasn't written by the left, that's for sure, and I think I mentioned that it was an extreemly unexpected move for Clinton to have acctualy signed the damn thing into law, it tends to go against most leftist views.