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.
Secondly, if you allow marriage to be redefined then you'll have to allow bigomy (remember you can't discriminate) or pretty much whatever "marriage" someone wants to do or is this reassignment of "rights" just reserved for the groups that can be the most vocal and disruptive?
Well, see, that's really my point. NO ONE should have "special rights" just because they're black, white, green, Martian, gay, straight, religious, atheist, cowboy, indian, or whatever. Rights are equally for all, or they are actually special privileges. Equally, no one's rights should be abridged just because they're not a member of a favoured group. (This is part of why I'm so adamantly against the concepts of "hate crimes" and "hate speech" -- it singles out a "downtrodden" group for special treatment.)
The concept of "marriage" is defined variously by social habit or by religion or sometimes both, depending on where in the world you are. It's so variable that it's not a good legal concept at all. Some places it's almost entirely a financial or power alliance (and that was the most typical worldwide, until the newfangled "nuclear family" came along about 150 years ago, thanks to the industrial revolution). So I agree -- for purposes of LAW, there should be only the "civil union", and what we call "marriage" -- well, your own social group or religion will define that for you. But the state shouldn't be able to restrict that right.
Last edited by Reziac; 03-16-2009 at 10:04 AM..
Reason: typed before morning caffeine
LOL only on Internet chat boards where everybody gets to be a war hero. What we have is a bunch of Internet tough guys acting like they have influence. They don't.
Oh really? This started out with just a few people:
Oh and Alaska has already passed a resolution affirming sovereignty even before this recent stuff:
Article 13. STATE CONTROL OF CERTAIN LAND
Sec. 38.05.500. Electorate determinations.
The people of the State of Alaska determine that:
(1) the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the states;
(2) the attempted imposition upon the State of Alaska by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the Statehood Act that the State of Alaska and its people "disclaim all right and title to any land or other property not granted or confirmed to the state or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or is subject to disposition by the United States," as a condition precedent to acceptance of Alaska into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void;
(3) the purported right of ownership and control of the public land in the State of Alaska by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States; and
(4) the exercise of that dominion and control of the public land in the State of Alaska by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Alaska. DOC Frame Page?
Very well thought out. I too wish I had more choices when it comes to elections. I fully belive ALL of the people runing should be allowed into the debates and allowed to speak not just the party darlings. I'd really like to see a Nevada style "none of the above" choice as well.
If I had my druthers none of the above would be on the ballot in all states. Enough people had voted that way, make all parties go back to the drawing board. The forced march I can't abide. Fiscal liberal A or fiscal liberal B isn't a choice, and candidate C isn't permited to aspire for anything more than a 'spoiler'.
As things stand at this late date, all 3rd parties have no shot to win. That would be the real level playing field. When it's possible for 3rd to get electoral votes in all states and potentially win. Independence party got on stage early 90's to open the door and was swiftly undermined, usurped, then wrestled over. Lieberman considers himself having dual citizenship it would appear.
Just because someone doesn't "belong" to the U.S. doesn't mean they cease to exist or go back to the stone age! If that was the case then Canada and the rest of the world wouldn't exist right?
Do you really think that the US would treat a renegade state as an equal?
They'd make sure you fail.
You might want to rethink.
Some people might be happy without cable, ability to travel, paying extra for books, banking (if possible), credit, etc.
I have a hard enough time having my credit card accepted in Europe.
Seriously, knock yourselves out, but the US would ensure you fail by providing no support whatsoever.
Way to assume something completely stupid. I don't care what color a person is.. Why do liberals instantly assume that because someone doesn't agree with you that they must be an ignorant racist redneck.
I don't discriminate, I dislike politicians equally!
Then why did you wait until a black man was voted into office to start your whining? Didn't see you posting this during the BushCo administration.
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.
There's a flat earth society too
