https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Cachemagic 2026-04-04T17:53:42Z Contribuições do utilizador MediaWiki 1.41.0 https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights&diff=30996 2008-12-09T16:53:41Z

<p>Cachemagic: </p> <hr /> <div>=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=<br /> <br /> Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&amp;id=5067 Right to Win]<br /> <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.<br /> <br /> Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs.&quot;<br /> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]<br /> <br /> French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]<br /> and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]<br /> <br /> <br /> In short, the case is about what &quot;marriage&quot; is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a &quot;marriage.&quot; All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it &quot;marriage.&quot; [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]<br /> <br /> [http://www.fairblog.org/2008/06/27/same-sex-marriage-equality-and-california-mormons-a-response-to-jeffrey-s-nielsen/ Legal Reasons to not allow same-sex marriage]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights&diff=30995 2008-12-09T16:53:17Z

<p>Cachemagic: </p> <hr /> <div>=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=<br /> <br /> Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&amp;id=5067 Right to Win]<br /> <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.<br /> <br /> Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs.&quot;<br /> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]<br /> <br /> French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]<br /> and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]<br /> <br /> <br /> In short, the case is about what &quot;marriage&quot; is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a &quot;marriage.&quot; All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it &quot;marriage.&quot; [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]<br /> <br /> [http://www.fairblog.org/2008/06/27/same-sex-marriage-equality-and-california-mormons-a-response-to-jeffrey-s-nielsen/ Legal Reasons to no allow same-sex marriage]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights&diff=30994 2008-12-09T16:52:29Z

<p>Cachemagic: </p> <hr /> <div>=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=<br /> <br /> Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&amp;id=5067 Right to Win]<br /> <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.<br /> <br /> Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs.&quot;<br /> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]<br /> <br /> French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]<br /> and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]<br /> <br /> <br /> In short, the case is about what &quot;marriage&quot; is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a &quot;marriage.&quot; All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it &quot;marriage.&quot; [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]<br /> <br /> [http://tinyurl.com/5g4gwa Legal Reasons to no allow same-sex marriage]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights&diff=30882 2008-12-06T23:37:07Z

<p>Cachemagic: </p> <hr /> <div>=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=<br /> <br /> Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&amp;id=5067 Right to Win]<br /> <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.<br /> <br /> Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs.&quot;<br /> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]<br /> <br /> French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]<br /> and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]<br /> <br /> <br /> In short, the case is about what &quot;marriage&quot; is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a &quot;marriage.&quot; All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it &quot;marriage.&quot; [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic&diff=30869 2008-12-05T16:03:58Z

<p>Cachemagic: </p> <hr /> <div>My Home Page<br /> <br /> [[/Sandbox/ERA|Sandbox-ERA]]<br /> <br /> [[/Sandbox/Rights|Sandbox-Rights]]<br /> <br /> [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses Journal of Discources]<br /> <br /> [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brigham_Young Brigham Young Quotes]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic&diff=30844 2008-12-05T00:34:00Z

<p>Cachemagic: </p> <hr /> <div>My Home Page<br /> <br /> [[/Sandbox/ERA|Sandbox-ERA]]<br /> <br /> [[/Sandbox/Rights|Sandbox-Rights]]<br /> <br /> [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses Journal of Discources]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights&diff=30841 2008-12-04T16:03:29Z

<p>Cachemagic: /* Marriage - Is it a Civil Right? */</p> <hr /> <div>=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=<br /> <br /> Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&amp;id=5067 Right to Win]<br /> <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.<br /> <br /> Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs.&quot;<br /> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]<br /> <br /> French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]<br /> and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]<br /> <br /> <br /> In short, the case is about what &quot;marriage&quot; is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a &quot;marriage.&quot; All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it &quot;marriage.&quot; [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights&diff=30840 2008-12-04T16:03:04Z

<p>Cachemagic: /* Marriage - Is it a Civil Right? */</p> <hr /> <div>=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=<br /> <br /> Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&amp;id=5067 Right to Win]<br /> <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.<br /> <br /> Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs.&quot;<br /> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]<br /> <br /> French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]<br /> and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]<br /> <br /> In short, the case is about what &quot;marriage&quot; is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a &quot;marriage.&quot; All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it &quot;marriage.&quot; [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic&diff=30508 2008-11-25T01:07:15Z

<p>Cachemagic: </p> <hr /> <div>My Home Page<br /> <br /> [[\Sandbox\ERA|Sandbox-ERA]]<br /> <br /> [[\Sandbox\Rights|Sandbox-Rights]]</div>

Cachemagic https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:Cachemagic&diff=30507 2008-11-25T01:06:02Z

<p>Cachemagic: New page: My Home Page Sandbox</p> <hr /> <div>My Home Page<br /> <br /> [[\Sandbox|Sandbox]]</div>

Cachemagic