> So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.

You introduced the idea when you turned your objection to how they may or may
not have sex into an objection to their marriage.  People can have sex without
marriage.  People can have marriage without sex.  Two people can get married
for immigration purposes, or for spousal benefits, or for emotional but
nonsexual reasons.  I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been
lifelong friends of each other) who got married in their 70s, because he was
terminally ill and she wanted to move in and care for him.  I have no idea
whether they had sex or not, and I have no interest in knowing.

You do not think same-sex couples should have sex with each other.  You have
made that clear.  But that has no necessary connection to marriage.

>> Looked up the Colorado case.  Some interesting details.  First, same-sex
>> marriage was not recognized in Colorado.  As far as the baker was
>> concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.

> So then...what's the court case all about?

The violation of Colorado's law.

>> Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was
>> legally recognized.  This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well
>> AFTER the fact.  The baker could not have possibly been a participant in
>> the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men

> So then, in other words, `sodomy' was already involved

Again, I do not know and do not care what they did before or after the
marriage.  They were married before they ever MET the baker, so he could not
possibly have been a "participant" in the marriage.  And baking a cake would
not make him a participant in anything they may have done before or after the
marriage.

> Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado

I believe they lived there.

>> Third, the baker testified that he would have refused
>> to bake a cake regardless of whether it was a "wedding" or a "commitment
>> ceremony" or a "civil union" ceremony (same-sex civil unions were
>> recognized in Colorado.

> And rightly so.

Not under the law.  And it had nothing to do with whether it was called a
"marriage" or not, since within the state of Colorado it was not recognized as
a marriage.



--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)