Lincoln, Nebraska - progressive? (Madison, Adams: schools, income, to live in)

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by itsMeFred

General Washington also owned people.
For that matter, the Constitution clearly states that Black people are only worth 3/5 of a white person.

Explain that to MattPoulsen. He's the one appealing to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution as religious guiding lights.

I'm not suggesting that we look to either as sources of religious or moral wisdom. Religion and morality do just fine without them.

Originally Posted by itsMeFred

PS: Your rights are only protected insofar as they don't trample on the rights of others.

Then why do homosexual activists have the right to trample on my right to raise a family in a culture that doesn't glorify sexual perversion?

There is no possibility of compromise in the same-sex "marriage" wars. That's one thing we are learning here in California. Either the homosexual activists win and traditional families lose, or we win and they lose. It's that simple. There is no "right" to sodomy. Homosexual "marriage" does not exist. Truth matters, and government has an obligation to uphold the truth and suppress lies for the common good.

[itsMeFred]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Then why do homosexual activists have the right to trample on my right to raise a family in a culture that doesn't glorify sexual perversion?

Yet you would allow divorce, fornication, the wearing of jewelry, gossip, going to church on Sunday, etc, etc??
Allowing people to get married heterosexually doesn't somehow glorify heterosexual sex, does it??


If your ability to raise your family is somehow threatened by anyone's marriage, you have far bigger problems on your plate.

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

You could be right. It's rather shocking that homosexual "marriage" remains illegal (thus far) in California but is now legal in Iowa, of all places. If it can happen in Iowa, I suppose it can happen anywhere.

They don't call it "Commiefornia" just for the hell of it.

I do think, however, that Iowans will take a lesson from California and fight this judicial usurpation somehow.

Well, it appears the Iowa judges are quite a bit smarter than the California judges, because to my understanding they provided some protection to keep that from happening.

That means that the people of Iowa can stomp their feet, hold their breath, wave their swastikas or whatever else they choose to do, but at the end of the day the court has ruled the gay marriage ban unconstitutional so it cannot be reversed by a popular vote.

Judging by your own comments in this thread, it appears there is a majority consensus in Nebraska, in part motivated by Christian beliefs, that persons of the same sex cannot marry each other and the state should not pretend otherwise. If this majority is strong enough to resist the courts, that's good enough for me. Christians of various stripes don't have to agree on every detail in order to reach a public consensus on things that matter.

I'm a Christian and a believer, yet it makes me sick to see people use such misguided interpretations (usually from irrelevant and out of date Old Testament) of the bible to impose their twisted "morality" on others.

I honestly can't believe how many people claim to be good Christians and yet they look down on their fellow man and are prejudice against them. That is NOT what the new testament teaches us. The new testament teaches us to love our fellow man no matter what.

Hopefully, we'll start to see some of these so called Christians pull their head out of their rear ends sometime soon.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

A judicial usurpation of what? The ability of the majority to strip rights from a minority

Was Brown v. Board of education a judicial usurpation?

The judiciary is supposed to step in cases such as these. First, Iowa had no Amendment on the issue. The judiciary is an absolute check to ensure the minority will not suffer from the tyranny of the majority.

People suggesting that judiciary should not have done this are completely ignorant on the workings of our government. This is absolutely the way the checks and balances are to work.

You just get upset when its YOUR view that gets usurped and then claim its unjust.

Well, if the majority all of a sudden decided to outlaw christians from marrying each other would you expect the judiciary to step in and deem this unconstitutional? Or would you be okay with the "majority" view...would that be "good enough for you" then??

No, it is not the role of the judiciary to "ensure the minority will not suffer from the tyranny of the majority". Where do you get this stuff? It is the role of the judiciary to ensure that statutory laws are just and conform to the constitution. The court, in this case, is simply making up laws of its own - an usurpation.

But that doesn't mean that the legislature or "the people" have a right to make laws approving same-sex marriage either. The definition of marriage is like the definition of wood or water: it is something that already objectively exists and cannot be changed by votes, court rulings, or government regulations. The role of government is to work with and regulate what exists in reality.

[mattpoulsen]

Your ignorance on constitutional law is astounding.

First, different peoples rights are weighed all of the time!

In the same way you claim you have a right to raise a family in a non-gay world, Southerns in the late 19th century and early 20th century argued the same thing in regard to interracial marriage!

The point is person's right to marry outweighs YOUR right not to be offended by that marriage.

Same goes with gay marriage. If you're so disgusted then move into exile. This type of tension pervades nearly ALL constitutional questions. And it is the exact reason that the Founders structured our system the way they did. Someone has to determine what rights trump other rights...guess who decides that?? Yup...the courts! Or Congress...but ONLY via Constitutional amendment...NOT statute.

How exactly does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" language not support my claim? It states nearly exactly what I stated....Congress shall not choose a religion. That isn't difficult to understand...and no reasonable reading of the Constitution would suggest otherwise. And the bottom line is there are some religions that DO accept gay marriage. So how do you determine which religious bent to apply?? YOURs or THEIRS? Answer: you apply neither!

That doesn't mean that Congress can't pass laws that are incidental to beliefs held within a religion!! But it is a long held tenet that laws can NOT be merely moral...that has to be an additional public policy reason, other than morality, for the restriction.

Further, even athiests believe murder, stealing and etc. are wrong. Those are social ills that are NOT derively solely out of a moral context. There is a good reason to keep them illegal as they actually have victims. How does gay marriage hurt you?? Other than you claimed right to "raise your family in a society that holds ONLY your beliefs?"

Actually their is a right to sodomy. Its derived through equal protection and right to privacy. But again...I'm sure you only care about right to privacy when it protects your interests.

You know. You're entitled to believe anything you like. But this is the United States and the basic fundamental tenet of this country is you have to deal with people that you may not approve of. If you want to live under fundamentalist regime then move to Saudia Arabia. Don't spew crap about how only with religion can we get back to our conservative values or only by oppressing gays can I live the life I want to live and not expect people to be offended by it. If you actually cared about the country you'd be the first one defending gays' right to marry. Instead, you show your true zealous self by denouncing their entire life simply because they disagree with YOUR version of the imaginary invisible being in the clouds.

Modcut- no profanity please.

[mattpoulsen]

No, it is not the role of the judiciary to "ensure the minority will not suffer from the tyranny of the majority".

Where do I get this stuff??

How about James Madison at the Constitutional Convention.

Try reading a book.

So, if you claim that isn't the role then do you claim that the court was wrong in striking down segregation laws?

When a court strikes down an anti-gay marriage statute they are doing exactly what you stated: testing whether a statute is constitutional.

Finally, marriage ONLY exists because the state sanctions it. Without a state statue providing for marriage no one could get a legal marriage. If you want to ague there is marriage under "god" then fine. But keep that in your church. This is a question of "legal" marriage. It ONLY exists in the context of state law. Just like a driver's license.

[itsMeFred]

BTW, I should have the right to raise my family in a world free of bigotry and prejudice.

Looks like I'm outta luck, too, eh?

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Then why do homosexual activists have the right to trample on my right to raise a family in a culture that doesn't glorify sexual perversion?

Where do you draw the line at "sexual perversion" though? Modcut- inappropriate for the thread.
If you really want a culture that oppresses people's sexuality, might I suggest you consider moving to the middle east? That might be a much better fit for you.

There is no possibility of compromise in the same-sex "marriage" wars. That's one thing we are learning here in California. Either the homosexual activists win and traditional families lose, or we win and they lose. It's that simple.

How do traditional families lose? I'm as straight as you can possibly be, but allowing gay marriage doesn't affect my right or ability to start a traditional family out of a heterosexual relationship.

That whole argument is bunk.

There is no "right" to sodomy.

Sure there is, provided it's a consensual act between two adults.

In July 2003 the Supreme Court reversed itself on the issue of sodomy. In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508, in a 6–3 decision, the Court invalidated a Texas anti-homosexual sodomy law by invoking the constitutional rights to privacy.

Sodomy legal definition of Sodomy. Sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Homosexual "marriage" does not exist.

The Iowa Supreme Court says it does, and quite a few couples exercised that right in Iowa just recently. Several other states provide the same right as well.

Truth matters, and government has an obligation to uphold the truth and suppress lies for the common good.

And that is exactly what the Iowa SC has done. They have ruled that denying a group of people a fundamental right due to the fact that their sexual orientation is "immoral" (according to the bible thumpers) is unconstitutional.

[itsMeFred]

Let's remember that this a family site, huh?
My 9 year old routinely reads over my shoulder...

[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Instead, you show your true zealous self by denouncing their entire life simply because they disagree with YOUR version of the imaginary invisible being in the clouds.

For god's-christ's-jesus'-sake please learn how to apply some amount of understanding to other people's lives. Christ christ christ!

Do you really have to insult those who agree with you too? Can you please tone down the insults on religion?