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.
OK, from the sounds of it you were changing your tone by your second post. Whatever.
My second post was intended to convey sarcasm, my friend--there's nothing strikingly "brave" about these pro-SSM senators, and I think I made that perfectly clear.
But enough about that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
On the 2A rights, that's really apples and oranges. The first is a clearly defined civil-right, while the second is a major disagreement on what a "marriage" entails. Some of us see the "man and a woman" as timeless, tried and true (while obviously not perfect) and in society's best interest; while others think the definition should be bended to mean more different things. As the party who always claims to defend the U.S. Constitution, the GOP's stances on these two issues should be completely reversed. Protect our 2nd Amendment rights, while leaving "where we want to go as a society from here" to the voters.
What these two issues have in common is the fact that constitutional questions have arisen from 1) the controlling of gun ownership in contravention of the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment incorporation, and 2) from the failure to extend equal legal/civil rights to a minority group under the Ninth Amendment and, again, Fourteenth Amendment incorporation (this runs much deeper than a simple ideological discrepency over what does or doesn't qualify as a "marriage").
That said, I wonder if you, a native resident of Massachusetts and apparent supporter of 2A rights, would ever want a civil rights issue like, for instance, the right to keep and bear arms, to be subject to the will of the MA electorate through the initiative/referendum process.
Please consider that when suggesting that civil rights/liberties should be denied or extended per majority will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
We in MA were fed the same b.s. like that it wouldn't affect anyone else or "their own family". But...
This is an extreme agenda, and one sponsored heavily by George Soros, Dan Savage and other wing-nuts.
Sure--leftist control freaks like Soros, Savage, et al. will go to extreme lengths to advocate their agenda, which, in this case, is far, far bigger than merely extending rights; their agenda, rather, in the simplest terms possible, is to exert control over any insitution, financial or social, that exists apart from the public sphere (i.e. religious institutions). The situation that your article laments would be occurring, I believe, regardless of whether or not SSM were given legal recognition.
And residents of MA aren't the only ones experiencing those sort of politically correct browbeatings, I'm sure.
What these two issues have in common is the fact that constitutional questions have arisen from 1) the controlling of gun ownership in contravention of the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment incorporation, and 2) from the failure to extend equal legal/civil rights to a minority group under the Ninth Amendment and, again, Fourteenth Amendment incorporation (this runs much deeper than a simple ideological discrepency over what does or doesn't qualify as a "marriage").
I really don't see how the Bill of Rights fit in with the marriage argument. How you say it makes the assumption that a. marriage is even a civil right and that b. marriage does not necessarily consist of the union of a man and a woman.
Civil "marriage" cannot be denied based on one's race or gender, but stretching that definition to mean things that are clearly not equal (to a man and a woman) has nothing to do with "equal rights". Every piece of research to date shows that a child is best off with a mother and father at home. Should one not be able to provide that while still seeking the same benefits as one who does, I see that as a selfish "I want my piece of the pie too". Nothing to do with civil rights or equality here, and a basic understanding of human biology confirms that. I am all for certain rights (ie. hospital visitation) being extended to alternate types of relationships. Full blown "marriage" on the other hand, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy
That said, I wonder if you, a native resident of Massachusetts and apparent supporter of 2A rights, would ever want a civil rights issue like, for instance, the right to keep and bear arms, to be subject to the will of the MA electorate through the initiative/referendum process.
Please consider that when suggesting that civil rights/liberties should be denied or extended per majority will.
Explained above. One is a civil right clearly defined under the 2nd Amendment (may not be altered by the voters), while the other is not defined anywhere (when the Bill of Rights were written, no one had the mind to suggest that "marriage" meant anything else). How were they to see this coming? Now that people are calling long accepted standards into question, it needs to be decided on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy
Sure--leftist control freaks like Soros, Savage, et al. will go to extreme lengths to advocate their agenda, which, in this case, is far, far bigger than merely extending rights; their agenda, rather, in the simplest terms possible, is to exert control over any insitution, financial or social, that exists apart from the public sphere (i.e. religious institutions). The situation that your article laments would be occurring, I believe, regardless of whether or not SSM were given legal recognition.
And residents of MA aren't the only ones experiencing those sort of politically correct browbeatings, I'm sure.
Things have gone way overboard in MA since the Goodrich decision came into effect. There is the David Parker Case for example. This father was forced to pull his 5 year old daughter out of school because he objected to certain material they were teaching to her. They basically told him that he had "no right" to opt his child out of the classroom while those controversial books were read and that if he had a problem then he could home school her. Public schools ("for everyone") paid through his own tax dollars, don't you love it? He took it to court. In the end, Judge Sandra Lynch denied his appeal with the reasoning that "because same-sex marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, schools now have the obligation to teach students about those things" or something to that effect. And this was a kindergartener!
Then the Catholic Charities, and private function hall owners being forced to cater to these same-sex "marriages" despite their personal objections.
Open up my link for more examples of just how out of hand things have gotten here, and how it has affected many more that those same-sex couples getting hitched.
Then of course comes the question of what is coming down the road. Now that they got "gay marriage", what will they be pushing for next? Do we really need polygamy as well? Before you scoff, there are actually about a dozen lawsuits going on right now seeking the right to wed multiple wives or whatever. Care to guess what their prime grounds are for this? The Goodrich Decision.
So yes, the new SSM law has certainly done it's share of damage.
what god is pro-abortion and "marries" same-sex couples ?
Irrelevant, unless you propose forcing people to believe in God, or forcing the government to favor one God over another - or over none.
Your church is free to refuse to marry anyone that doesn't fit their requirements for marriage, just as it's always done.
And the government will do what it's supposed to do, and treat people equally and not follow the dictates of any church. Because which one would they follow, anyway? The Catholic church refused to marry my sister because her husband had been married before and had divorced. They don't recognize the divorce. Are you suggesting that states should follow that example? Or should they believe he was divorced, like the Protestant church believed?
Roger Williams would tell you that religion shouldn't be sullied by association with common place politics and government shouldn't be enforcing religion, because it only cheapens both. For Pete's sake, we invented the separation of church and state, it's a little embarrassing that we've taken so long to ensure equal treatment under the law.
"Irrelevant, unless you propose forcing people to believe in God, or forcing the government to favor one God over another - or over none.
Your church is free to refuse to marry anyone that doesn't fit their requirements for marriage, just as it's always done.
And the government will do what it's supposed to do, and treat people equally and not follow the dictates of any church. Because which one would they follow, anyway? The Catholic church refused to marry my sister because her husband had been married before and had divorced. They don't recognize the divorce. Are you suggesting that states should follow that example? Or should they believe he was divorced, like the Protestant church believed?
Roger Williams would tell you that religion shouldn't be sullied by association with common place politics and government shouldn't be enforcing religion, because it only cheapens both. For Pete's sake, we invented the separation of church and state, it's a little embarrassing that we've taken so long to ensure equal treatment under the law."...
Well stated! I would have given you five hundred reputation thumbs up if I could!
Irrelevant, unless you propose forcing people to believe in God, or forcing the government to favor one God over another - or over none.
Your church is free to refuse to marry anyone that doesn't fit their requirements for marriage, just as it's always done.
And the government will do what it's supposed to do, and treat people equally and not follow the dictates of any church. Because which one would they follow, anyway? The Catholic church refused to marry my sister because her husband had been married before and had divorced. They don't recognize the divorce. Are you suggesting that states should follow that example? Or should they believe he was divorced, like the Protestant church believed?
Roger Williams would tell you that religion shouldn't be sullied by association with common place politics and government shouldn't be enforcing religion, because it only cheapens both. For Pete's sake, we invented the separation of church and state, it's a little embarrassing that we've taken so long to ensure equal treatment under the law.
Excellent post! I wanted to rep you but had done it too recently, so thought I'd give you a shout out. It's amazing how the Churchies think this issue is more about homosexuality than it is separation of Church and State.
Irrelevant, unless you propose forcing people to believe in God, or forcing the government to favor one God over another - or over none.
Your church is free to refuse to marry anyone that doesn't fit their requirements for marriage, just as it's always done.
And the government will do what it's supposed to do, and treat people equally and not follow the dictates of any church. Because which one would they follow, anyway? The Catholic church refused to marry my sister because her husband had been married before and had divorced. They don't recognize the divorce. Are you suggesting that states should follow that example? Or should they believe he was divorced, like the Protestant church believed?
Roger Williams would tell you that religion shouldn't be sullied by association with common place politics and government shouldn't be enforcing religion, because it only cheapens both. For Pete's sake, we invented the separation of church and state, it's a little embarrassing that we've taken so long to ensure equal treatment under the law.
Great post! Some people don't seem to get it through their thick skulls that ther IS separation of church and state. It's a very simple concept, really, and one wonders why they struggle so very, very hard to understand it.
According to the Boston Globe, it looks like little Rhodie will join the other civilized NE states by this evening. Congratulations and what took you so long?!
Roger Williams would tell you that religion shouldn't be sullied by association with common place politics and government shouldn't be enforcing religion, because it only cheapens both. For Pete's sake, we invented the separation of church and state, it's a little embarrassing that we've taken so long to ensure equal treatment under the law.
And I'm sure Roger Williams would have been for all this nonsense. He would have faced a lynch mob in present day RI.
The great Joe Fitzgerald just wrote a very timely column that I think very well describes the hatred displayed by many on this forum.
I blame our education system and their indoctrination of young vulnerable minds.
The homosexual community has succeeded in demonizing anyone who resists its agenda, manufacturing words like homophobia to imply such resistance has its roots in ignorance and hatred. And this is from the crowd that once pleaded for tolerance.
Oh, please! There goes that "agenda" thing again, an "agenda" that no one seems able to define. Equality now!
"And I'm sure Roger Williams would have been for all this nonsense. He would have faced a lynch mob in present day RI."
Two things: 1) Roger Williams faced his own Lynch Mob in the form of the Puritans
2) Most Rhode Islanders are pro-gay marriage, and are cool with Roger Williams.
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.
. He would have faced a lynch mob in present day RI.
