Same sex marrage

[39mto39g]

The reason for the constitutional ammendment is because if a State said its ok to Marrie your sister, all the other states have to recognise there marrage as a leagle marrage.
In the pass no state would alllow same sex marrages so it wasn't a problem, Now If California says its ok for same sex to get married then there marrage licens is good in all states. The constitutonal ammendment with define what a marrage is, (between a man and a woman) People of same sex can do what ever they want but wont have a marrage licens that is good in all states.

Ron

[phuloi]

You folks are missing the point here.The PEOPLE of California have already said a resounding NO to homosexual marriage.They have done this through the legislative process,so for a mayor or a judge to ignore this law is a pure form of arnachy.This is NOT civil disobediance as some would lead you to believe,but a thumbing of the nose to the laws of the land.All these homosexuals that are tieing the knot will be sadly mistaken when their vows become null and void.

[Arrow]

Exactly Griz. But watch as the ship tips as the homosexual community runs to the other side of the deck when they find out the law is not on their side.

Ron,

I agree with you and for the reasons you stated as Andy did on another thread. As a society we have to set boundries somewhere. I would hate to return to those days when it is legal for a parent to trade a cow for a ten year old girl child and call it a marriage.

Arrow>>>>>>

[BLUEHAWK]

Ya know Ron - if'n ole Blue is not mistaken (again) it is my understanding that:

a) Our original perfectly fine (in my opinion) Articles of Confederation got changed due to some who wanted a tight central Federal government, and

b) We fought a bloody and long War of Rebellion (as I prefer it be called) over the idea that states DO have some special rights, which, to my knowledge, for the most part none of them did, has or will be likely to give up on (including the right to NOT recognize a given marriage).

Now, if the Feds wanna get real about reality, then we'll need a NATIONAL driver license and license plate to start with, and then ONE rule about who can drink and smoke at what age, and ONE rule about who can and cannot get married at what age, and ONE sales tax, and what IRS tax a state puts in is what that state gets out from the kitty... etc etc etc.

Whaddya think Ron?

[Andy]

I was just thinking about the constitution.
Separation of Church and State was intended to say that the government will not sponsor or create a State religion. During the days of the Articles of Confederation a few states required people to pay taxes which were in part were used to sponsor a religion. The argument was why should a Congregationalist be required to pay for an Episcopalian minister?s salary. There was never the slightest thought of kicking God out of government. The president and other elected officials take their oath of office with a hand on the Bible. Congress and the Supreme Court start there sessions with a prayer, etc., etc.

Equal Rights in the Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced as a bill in congress in 1923. It failed, there is no Equal Right Amendment. Courts have ruled that people should be treated equally as an ideal but it?s not necessarily the law. Think about it, I?m a white male, there are many more black males in the NBA than whites, thus could I file a law suite saying I?m being discriminated against? Could I file suite because they won?t let me be a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader?

Depriving people of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That's one that has always annoyed me because it?s not true in so very many cases. It?s also the rallying cry of most every drunk who was ever arrested.

I take great joy in riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet but it?s against the law. Part of my pursuit of happiness is smoking cigarettes, however if I go to the city hall with a lit Marlboro, I get arrested. I feel that my life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness, in part, depends on having a loaded firearm readily available in my own home. That too has recently become against the law (where I live).

If a couple consists of two people who are hard wired (biologically) to be predisposed to desire a relationship with a member of the same sex, fine. Let it be recognized by the state as a Civil Union. The whole idea of marriage, historically, was about who the parents of a child are and who is responsible for them until they reach the age of emancipation. Sure there are plenty of kids up for adoption however, for the most part, that is due to a break down in our society. Will gay marriage promote a more traditional, a more value based society or is it another step in the breakdown? Will gay marriage pave the road to legalization of bigamy, incest and adult-child marriage? Would those action be covered by equal protection under the law?

Please stay healthy,
Andy

[BLUEHAWK]

Andy -

A part of me says, "How in the world would it EVER be possible for any group to rise up and insist that incest or adult-child marriage be a RIGHT under the constitution!" Bigamy doesn't bother me all that much frankly, so long as the kids and spouses get their fair and rightful share. There's a helluva difference between breaking a taboo and simply doing something that other people disapprove of (or lust for). And then, along came Jones; slow walkin' slow talkin' Jones... and whammo, more unbelieveable things have gotten put into practise since I was a kid than anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY, could ever possibly have nightmared possible.

So, some are saying, "Nah, THIS won't lead to something else Man!"... and so I say back, "In a pig's eye." It could, and probably it will, no matter HOW much anybody resists... and there is what I still do not fully comprehend... HOW in the name of heaven is any of that made real when so many are agin' it??? :cl:

Some folks tried to start different clubs or publications and what not aimed solely at us whiteys... and right off they are condemned to hell for racism.

Now, supposing it got set forth slightly differently... for example, that the Irish wanted to do something for ourselves, or maybe the Mende people of Sierra Leone who live within our borders did... why then nobody would give a hoot!

Ya know Andy, and I ain't exaggerating here (this time ), I believe it IS a communist plot!

[39mto39g]

What I think useually can't be printed.
The amendment would only discribe what a marrage is, (between a man and woman) For as long as there have been marrages, the states have had the right to regulate marrages, just recently a mayor and a few judges decided that they would change what the overwelming majority of people think is a marrage. Now theres nothin wrong with two guys getting married that a 50 cal couldn't fix, but the problem is that if those guys get married and move to Mass. then they have the same rights that any Mass. married couple has. And then there is the big one, Where does it stop with the marrage, Marry your sister, or your dog. The amendment would define what a marrage is for all states.
As far as the drivers lic, goes, if a state decided that all it took was 3 box tops to get a drivers lic then I would guess the federal government would step in again, BUUUUT the states don't do that, they have test, Just like they used to NOT allow same sex marrages.
ANNNND, Andy is correct that the Marrages in Cal are not leagle, Those don't bother me none, cause they will get thrown out, The Mass. thing with the judges is why the amendment is out there.
These guys think they can change what the American people think Morality is, Got news for them. Amendment will end there stupidity.

Ron

[BLUEHAWK]

Ron, brother, if I may so say...

There ain't gonna BE any amendment, the dang horse IS outa the barn.

As far as the States and licensing... we know they tell us since before birth that driving is not a right, it is a "privilege", right? Well, what it actually is, is a way for states to put our dollars into their budgets, nothing more and nothing less... only THE most moral of our public officials could give one s--t whether a person knows the rules of the road or not... what they want is the money. It is a cost center, not a way of regulating conduct any more... so say I, a mere Zoomie. If we had actually ever become a Federal system, then there would have been a Federal driving license and plate roughly 80 years ago.

Some years ago the insurance industry convinced the States that it was costing taxpayers gazillions when a person did not have their insurance paid up. So, they made it a law that a person not only had to HAVE car insurance at a certain level of premium, but also would be FINED (MIND YOU!) at a fairly high rate (for a person making minimum wage) if they failed to have "proof" of insurance ON THEIR PERSON when stopped by the constabulary. Does this sound like the land of the free and home of the brave to anybody?

Who made out on that deal? Two factions: the States, and the Insurance industry.

Have accidents been reduced? No. Have premiums gone down? No. Has the State lessened its demand for more and more and more of our earned income? No. Have insurance companies gotten rich? Yes. Have States squandered or mismanaged their budgets? Yes. Has the Federal government imposed unfunded mandates upon the States? Yes, and then some.

[sn-e3]

!0 years ago I would have been dead set against that union of same sex. But times have changed I do not believe that it is right in the religious way. BUT then again in the civil way Why NOT they are living togeather all ready they are paying more taxes because they can't claim married. and by gum why should we single out any group just because they are different then them main stream. Hell if we do that we might just as well make brown eyed people pay more taxes then blue eyed people. It Just don't make no sense to persiquete people because they are different then us. Now that I have said that fire away I'm a standing target.

[BLUEHAWK]

Sne -
You ain't no standing target any more than the rest of us... facts be facts.

There's troopers, squids, grunts and zoomies out there serving our nation... taking and giving fire for the promise of democracy and freedom. What is past is past.

I don't give a gol dang who gets married, I just don't want this or any government telling us who can and cannot do so if they please.