Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to love this whole thing in California liberals thought it would be a sure thing so they said hey lets vote for gay marriage then when democracy didn't give them what they wanted they went to the courts.
What? Where did you get that idea? It's totally wrong.
I'm astonished that some people believe that it was liberals who wanted to put same-sex marriage up for a vote. How uninformed can you be?
I'm astonished that some people believe that it was liberals who wanted to put same-sex marriage up for a vote. How uninformed can you be?
We both know liberals wanted a vote on it because you thought you could win. I mean if you can't win in California the belly of the beast where can you win? How naive can you be?
I know it wasn't liberals who put prep 8 up for a vote doesn't mean you didn't want it.
Quote:
If they are truly proud of their stance, they should want to shout it from the rooftops.
Why so left wing nut cases can camp outside their work, send threatening phone calls and write things about them in their blogs.
We both know liberals wanted a vote on it because you thought you could win. I mean if you can't win in California the belly of the beast where can you win? How naive can you be?
No, my friend. That's not correct. People in favor of same-sex marriage in California had no desire to see it to go to a vote. It would have been a preposterous thing to do. Same-sex marriage was legal. Putting it to a vote was completely the idea of those who wanted to take away the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Quote:
I know it wasn't liberals who put prep 8 up for a vote doesn't mean you didn't want it.
How about the "fact" that homosexual priests in the Catholic Church molested little boys and teenagers for years?
You mean pedophile priests. If these priests had had the same sort of access to altar girls or girls schools it would have lots of girls who were being molested.
The militant, radical homosexual crowd is a scary thing to behold their actions being reminiscent of Nazi thugs in 1933 Germany.
I'm incredulous that you would even attempt this connection.
No one deserves to be compared to this travesty of history.
Are you even aware of what went on back then? If you are you wouldn't of said this.
The right to enter into contract is one thing, a government granted privilege is another.
People are endowed with certain inalienable rights - life, liberty, property ownership, etc. Governments are instituted to secure those rights. . . and govern those who consent. Though not stressed in Socialist indoctrination, 99% of what government is legislating is not to secure rights, but to govern the consenting parties.
Government protects rights, with specially delegated powers.
Government grants privileges, also known as civil and political liberties (i.e., civil rights).
A marriage contract (I stress CONTRACT) is for specific reasons in law, such as joining two property rights into one, as well as recognizing certain property rights associated with that contract.
Unfortunately, most Americans are kept ignorant of law, and thus make fundamental errors in logic.
A homosexual couple (or any number) who wish to merge property, via contract, for the benefit of the survivors (i.e., tontine) is perfectly reasonable. But it is NOT a marriage contract.
It may help clarify things to realize that liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil and political.
Natural liberty = absolute freedom
Personal liberty = right of locomotion upon the public roads and waterways
Civil liberty = permission from government (i.e., license)
Political liberty = participation in government (voting, holding public office)
The former two are part of inalienable rights. The latter two are government granted privileges.
Since 1935, and the Socialist InSecurity Act, the majority of Americans have surrendered their endowment in exchange for access to "entitlements". As you may know, participation is 100% voluntary - there is no law compelling participation. Nor is there any law punishing those who do not participate. If there was a mandatory law, it would be involuntary servitude and unconstitutional. Yet millions believe that there is a law that compels them to join up and get the number, before they can work in their own country.
Americans have lived under a "State of Emergency" since 1933, and incremental national socialism, since 1935. And by their consent, they surrender certain rights, to which this generation has no common knowledge anymore. For example, most believe that they have a right to vote or hold office. That is untrue. It is a government granted privilege.
"The right of holding state office is a civil or political right, which may be surrendered to the government or to society in order to secure the protection of other rights ([State] Bill of Rights, art. 3), or the government may abridge or take away such rights for sufficient cause; for, though such rights may be considered natural rights (Bill of Rights, art. 2) yet they are not of the class of natural rights which are held to be inalienable, like the rights of conscience (Bill of Rights, art. 4)"
- - Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9 (N.H. 1868)
(*translation: the political liberty of holding state office is granted by government and not in the class of natural rights, and may be surrendered in order to exercise inalienable rights that were waived by the exercise of political liberty. Or as Ben Franklin said, public service must be a step DOWN in status, lest the servant becomes the master.)
For an example of the implicit surrender of inalienable rights, one need only consider conscription of the militia. Compulsory military service is certainly a violation of one's inalienable rights - but said service is limited to citizens (subjects).
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Most American males are unaware that they are or were part of the militia of the United States. Correction - American male CITIZENS.
So be very careful in presuming what a right is. A right granted by your Creator is one thing, a privilege (aka right) granted by government is entirely different. And petitioning for privileges may cause the loss of rights.
What does your long-winded partisan rant have to do with the topic at hand?
Firstly, this Nation does not recognize "rights endowed by our creator".
Secondly, Marriage, and the thousand plus rights that come with the institution, creates a familial bond, for legal purpsoes, stronger than any other such bonds. Your spouse becomes your primary next of kin. Everything from joint custody of children to power of attorny are covered. It isn't just for "property".
Thirdly, I LOVE that you bring up Hale v. Everett. This case involved New Hampshires recent (for the time) Religious Test Clause that banned non-Protistants from holding office. The Supreme Court of NH was upholding their State Constitution, and it also illustrates perfectly why religion and g'ment should not be allowed to intermix.
Fourthly, no person can be forced to serve in the military. Period. What you refeerence, had you bothered to research isntead of copypasta off of right-wing nutjob sites, is that a "Militia" is the National Guards. The educatesd reader will note that the National Guard is the evolution of State Militias. Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311 references both male and femal Guard members, not just females who are in the Guard. US CODE: Title 10,311. Militia: composition and classes
Lastley, Equality of Marriage for gays would in no way, shape, or form impact everyone else's rights. I of course invite you to prove that, and would ask you to keep the right-wing empty rhetoric to a minimum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
