Utilizador:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights - Histórico de revisões

Cachemagic em 16h53min de 9 de dezembro de 2008

2008-12-09T16:53:41Z

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h53min de 9 de dezembro de 2008
Linha 20:		Linha 20:
	[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]		[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]

	[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]		[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]

Cachemagic em 16h53min de 9 de dezembro de 2008

2008-12-09T16:53:17Z

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h53min de 9 de dezembro de 2008
Linha 20:		Linha 20:
	[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]		[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]

	[http://~~tinyurl~~.~~com~~/~~5g4gwa~~ Legal Reasons to no allow same-sex marriage]		[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]

Cachemagic em 16h52min de 9 de dezembro de 2008

2008-12-09T16:52:29Z

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h52min de 9 de dezembro de 2008
Linha 19:		Linha 19:

	[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]		[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]

			[http://tinyurl.com/5g4gwa Legal Reasons to no allow same-sex marriage]

Cachemagic em 23h37min de 6 de dezembro de 2008

2008-12-06T23:37:07Z

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 23h37min de 6 de dezembro de 2008
Linha 16:		Linha 16:

	In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." 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 "marriage." [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]		In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." 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 "marriage." [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]


			[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]

Cachemagic: /* Marriage - Is it a Civil Right? */

2008-12-04T16:03:29Z

Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h03min de 4 de dezembro de 2008
Linha 13:		Linha 13:
	French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]		French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]
	and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]		and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]


	In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." 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 "marriage." [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]		In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." 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 "marriage." [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]

Cachemagic: /* Marriage - Is it a Civil Right? */

2008-12-04T16:03:04Z

Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h03min de 4 de dezembro de 2008
Linha 13:		Linha 13:
	French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]		French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]
	and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]		and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]

			In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." 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 "marriage." [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]

RogerNicholson: /* Marriage - Is it a Civil Right? */ Missed text

2008-11-25T16:48:15Z

Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?: Missed text

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h48min de 25 de novembro de 2008
Linha 10:		Linha 10:
	"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."		"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."
	[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]		[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]

			French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]
			and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]

RogerNicholson: Transferring text from root sandbox to local one

2008-11-25T16:47:23Z

Transferring text from root sandbox to local one

Página nova

=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=

Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Right to Win]

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.

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 ]

"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."
[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]