Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 81
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    357
    The DOMA verdict is a win for states rights but the Prop 8 verdict has repercussions way beyond SSM, and a clear loser for state rights. In DOMA the federal Gov. was discriminating against states that allow SSM and that was a clear violation of the constitution.

    Prop 8 was a referendum to a state constitution that the current governor refused to agree with. The people brought it to SCOTUS and were deemed unqualified to argue. Clearly this is another power grab to politicians. So if the people pass a resolution and the state leader doesn't like it he can ignore it and the people have no recourse is what this case is about.

    Divide and conquer is the modern politicians play book.

    So go ahead and gripe and moan about SSM while the walls of liberty keep crashing down before us. We have a state that is spying on us at its whim, a state taking away freedoms in the name of perpetual wars (terror and drugs), and making us all become slaves to the code and regulation bureaucracy, not mention the redistribution of wealth and property in the name of entitlements. But. We are too busy arguing who can marry who and it really is none of our business. The state loves you for doing this.
    We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not
    prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may
    prevent its use for desirable purposes.


    F.A. Hayek

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by hearthman View Post
    Listen to Bill Whittle's take on gay marriage then comment on this as a "right".
    I would agree with him in that marriage involves contract law more than religion.

    Why would the US or any state government want to limit a persons right to enter in to a contract that does no harm to any outside party.

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,834
    Quote Originally Posted by netsalt View Post
    I would agree with him in that marriage involves contract law more than religion.

    Why would the US or any state government want to limit a persons right to enter in to a contract that does no harm to any outside party.

    Yeah but why should we grant them tax breaks, insurance coverage (risky lifestyle), adoption rights, etc., etc. That's the problem, we should not award acts against nature and their "union" normally doesn't last more than a few months or a year with exceptions of course whom they bring out all the time to make us think this is the norm. Not buying that propganda show. Thank you, thank you very muchb
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,837
    Why should hetro couples get tax breaks, insurance coverage, adoption rights, etc. With the current level of unwed parents and the divorce rate what it is, the law as it stands does not serve us as a society that well either.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,834
    Well a healthy nation depends on well adjusted married couples with children. This should be encouraged and promoted more not put down by gay marriages and pride parades being allowed down our city streets showing perverted behavior and dress. Thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,273
    I would offer a rebuttal of Salty's point:

    First of all, the reason the government would want to limit a person's rights to do anything is power and control. That is their reason for being. It is their prime directive-to not only exist but to multiply like a virus taking over hosts.

    Second, your assumption that a gay marriage contract, which is what we're alluding to here, does not harm others is false. Marriage, outside of Judeo-Christian models, such as gay marriage or polygamy or marriage to an inanimate object or animal are not only considered offensive or absurd but attack the very principles of those religions. In short, it is intended to make a mockery of these religions, upon which the country was founded. Hey, if you want to live in the mountains and shack up with a bear, go knock yourself out but just don't try to call it "marriage". That term has special meaning within these religions because it is a union of two recognized by God as becoming one person IN God. This is not just a membership in some club but a one time lifetime and forever holy union with and in God. To attempt to ram LGBT 'marriage' down our throats is a great offense to us. You can use some other PC term such as "civil union' or 'life partnership' but it is not nor cannot be a "marriage". More than wanting some sort of special recognition or rights and privileges by the gov't, it is first and foremost and attack on religion. Whether a LGBT couple call themselves "married" or not really doesn't change their lives one iota. It is done as an in-your-face to religion much like a schoolyard nah, nanny nah, nah with tongue out. This is being done to corrupt our youth and 'convert' as many as possible, if not directly into the LGBT lifestyle at least into carrying the flag for them.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by hearthman View Post
    ...In short, it is intended to make a mockery of these religions, upon which the country was founded...
    I don't think you understand the meaning of the word intent. You are saying, that the REASON homosexuals want to get married, is primarily to make a mockery of religion? Do you really believe that is their reason? How self centered are you? You claim that they want to use the word marriage to mock a religion. A word/concept that existed before that religion did? Again, you see your world through your own eyes, as most do, but it is a special kind of lunacy that makes one convinced that those are the only eyes that exist. Remember, MOST of the world does not believe in the same god you do.

    Now, as the the legal aspect, I don't think the states/government, or anyone outside the parties involve have any interest in a civil contract between private parties. The problem with gay marriage isn't that it is banned, the problem is that hetero marriage is governmentally validated. I honestly think all laws that treat married parties different than non-married parties, regardless of sex, are discriminatory in their very nature.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by hearthman View Post
    I would offer a rebuttal of Salty's point:

    First of all, the reason the government would want to limit a person's rights to do anything is power and control. That is their reason for being. It is their prime directive-to not only exist but to multiply like a virus taking over hosts.

    Second, your assumption that a gay marriage contract, which is what we're alluding to here, does not harm others is false. Marriage, outside of Judeo-Christian models, such as gay marriage or polygamy or marriage to an inanimate object or animal are not only considered offensive or absurd but attack the very principles of those religions. In short, it is intended to make a mockery of these religions, upon which the country was founded. Hey, if you want to live in the mountains and shack up with a bear, go knock yourself out but just don't try to call it "marriage". That term has special meaning within these religions because it is a union of two recognized by God as becoming one person IN God. This is not just a membership in some club but a one time lifetime and forever holy union with and in God. To attempt to ram LGBT 'marriage' down our throats is a great offense to us. You can use some other PC term such as "civil union' or 'life partnership' but it is not nor cannot be a "marriage". More than wanting some sort of special recognition or rights and privileges by the gov't, it is first and foremost and attack on religion. Whether a LGBT couple call themselves "married" or not really doesn't change their lives one iota. It is done as an in-your-face to religion much like a schoolyard nah, nanny nah, nah with tongue out. This is being done to corrupt our youth and 'convert' as many as possible, if not directly into the LGBT lifestyle at least into carrying the flag for them.

    So this discussion has come full circle.

    This is why the establishment clause in the Constitution reads the way it does.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,579
    Quote Originally Posted by netsalt View Post
    So this discussion has come full circle.

    This is why the establishment clause in the Constitution reads the way it does.
    Actually, this is not true. The establishment clause was in response to the British government basically seizing control of the Church of England.

    Primarily, the reason for the 1st Amendment was to keep government from telling the church what to do.

    Granted, none of us here want the opposite either...religion seizing control of government as often happens in Muslim countries. But we have far too many safeguards in our constitution for that to happen, so nothing to worry about there. After more than two centuries, religion has less influence on government than ever.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,837
    In the beginning the establishment clause spoke to Congress and the Federal Gov directly but with the ratification of 14th amendment the states were brought in.

    " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    One of the protected liberties states must abide by is the establishment clause which protects the citizen from persecution by religious zealots of any stripe.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by k-fridge View Post
    But we have far too many safeguards in our constitution for that to happen, so nothing to worry about there.
    Oh yeah, that's worked well over the last century.

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,579
    Quote Originally Posted by netsalt View Post
    In the beginning the establishment clause spoke to Congress and the Federal Gov directly but with the ratification of 14th amendment the states were brought in.

    " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    Again....the intent of the 14th was toward former slaves and legal immigrants.

    One of the protected liberties states must abide by is the establishment clause which protects the citizen from persecution by religious zealots of any stripe.
    This is simply an opinion, and an incorrect one at that. Most likely, propaganda that you've heard. Think about it...our right to free speech makes this opinion pretty much unworkable.

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,579
    Quote Originally Posted by CraziFuzzy View Post
    Oh yeah, that's worked well over the last century.
    You're right, it has. Our government is under less influence from religion than ever.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event