|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 29, 2011 14:55:33 GMT -5
Good to know, Swimmy. Your legal expertise makes you an asset here for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 29, 2011 15:58:26 GMT -5
I too always found it interesting that Cheney avoided the subject while in office, but then again, although I DID support GW Bush to a major extent in his first term and part of his second, he supported an amendment that would forbid same sex marriage. That didn't surprise me, as most conservative Christian republicans are against gay marriage. As for Cheney, I NEVER liked Dick Cheney, and it was evident that his daughter was an political embarrassment to him. As for my blasting the church going, overzealous, Southern Baptists I encounter from time to time living here in the South, I don't condemn their faith in God, or their right to their beliefs. I simply envision our God as a merciful and forgiving God, and not one that would condemn a person that he himself created including a gay person. I have always been of the opinion that God doesn't make junk. I find it hypocritical to preach love and peace, and to harbor these biases and prejudices against, and to judge a sector of God's society. I have a close friend here, with which I reached an honest understanding not too long ago about his supposed "walk with Jesus". He is as pious as one can be without being canonized. Yet while questioning the lives of others with his "what would Jesus do" mentality, he twice offended me deeply when he called my very best friend by the N word, and constantly talks about the Ni**er in the White House. He stated at one point during President Obama's campaign in 08 that he honestly believes that black people don't have the same high level of intelligence as white people. He thinks they are genetically disposed to be less intelligent than white folks. Welcome to the South. I am not a fan of Obama, but racist epithets are never a part of any negative discourse I participate in. It took me only about 2 seconds to put him on the correct track when it came to racial epethets and judging people by skin color. I also found it ironic that at one of our bowling gatherings, he would not bow his head and pray with the rest of us because the person leading the prayer was a female gay school teacher, in her 60's, who has been in a committed relationship with the same woman, an ordained minister, for most of her adult life. He said God would not recognize a prayer led by " The lezzie butch dyke woman" To me that sort of bias is blatantly ignorant and nothing like what God would want for us.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 29, 2011 19:09:46 GMT -5
Well if homosexuality is such a sin to them, then they should make sure THEY don't commit that sin. They commit an even greater sin by passing judgement which they supposedly espouse it is up to God to judge. That is what pisses me off, that people think it is their business what someone else is doing with their life. If they are sinners, that is their business and will have to face the music in the end, not the holy rollers. If you don't like it, ignore it. The more they bitch about it, the more attention it gives the issue.
No, that is not what God would want from us at all. The ignorance is staggering. If blacks are predisposed to be less intelligent, then I guess rednecks are predisposed to be racist morons. Sounds about right, eh?
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 29, 2011 20:29:46 GMT -5
This is nothing new, since the beginning of time, certain groups are set apart from others and chastised for there practices as well as culture. To be honest, Gays are about the only group that have been picked on almost 100% of history.
It also interesting that there are lots of visual cues with different races and genders but very often none with Homosexuals. Its almost a Witch Hunt mentality in many Societies. Thankfully, ours isn't one of them as a general population though we do have exceptions to that rule, the South is a bit behind the times on allot of subjects, they also get allot right!
Most of us read The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roman Empire at one time or another, I did in high school. It was long winded but it did outline one of the most successful civilizations in history and described acceptance of Homosexuality as a benchmark for a civilization in decline. Many of us were lead to believe Homosexual behavior is Deviant, Unnatural, incapable of producing offspring therefore unsustainable, against the laws of nature and God.
I do ask for some leniency for our young nation when it comes to judgment. We led the way in more areas of Societal advancement in our 230 years than most Countries 10 times our age or more.
Is it perfect, hell no, it never will be! Is it getting better, a little bit, all the time! Is it getting worse, Yes it is, they have passed all of the good laws now they have to find things to fill in their dead time between bankrupting our Nation, Collecting Campaign donations and trying to Engineer our Socity through laws instead of education!
Our over-controlling Government, Nosy Neighbors and Special Interest Campaigners need to learn to stay out of our personal lives, live up to their Constitutional obligations and stop trying to legislate morality via their elected offices and Group-think Lynching Mobs!
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 29, 2011 21:48:05 GMT -5
You say that the South is a bit behind the times on allot of subjects, they also get allot right! In DEFENSE of the South, I have to give them credit for having a lot less legislation, taxation, and government interference our lives.
Tennessee residents resist government intrusion. We don't have a state income tax, because the citizenry would rather have EVERYONE pay for government services with an equally leveled state sales tax that insures that everyone pays their fair share. They strongly resist rising costs in government. They simply don't tolerate it and they would rather live with less public services than to pay for aristocracy and buracracy.
Most cities operate under "city manager" style city government. I myself don't live within the city, but the city has less political bickering and NONE of the silly crap like this ambulance fiasco has turned out to be, because they hire a competent city manager, whose business it is to manage the city. His position and his reputation depend on his efficiency and proficiency. Political positions such as councilman and mayor don't do the hiring and firing, and they don't have control of everyday spending for the most part.
We don't have the luxury of wide shoulders on the roads or guard rails at every dip in the terrain, but then again, people seem to have enough sense to stay on the blacktop for the most part. It is much cheaper living here, and there's a much more laid back attitude toward government and politicians seem to take a more responsible attitude toward budgetary matters.
With ALL the advantages and positive attributes of Southern living, and all the good friends I have made here, NY will ALWAYS be home to me. I am simply not able to acclimate to the loss of good ethnic foods, the muddy bottom TVA lakes as opposed to our crystal clear Adirondack lakes of upstate NY, or the heat in summer.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 29, 2011 22:24:50 GMT -5
Thank you, Firstamendment. But I doubt I have any expertise, just good ol' research and elbow grease.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 30, 2011 4:25:17 GMT -5
No need to defend the south Clipper. It may have some issues but more people want to live there than here!
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 30, 2011 6:10:25 GMT -5
Its all about the Constitution in my mind. If its not in support of it or to defend it, it shouldn't be brought to the table in our hall of Justice or Laws.
The founders were not shortsighted in their sworn beliefs that "All Men are Created Equal". They were referring to Hu"Men"s. Obviously, the simplicity of the document has been one of its greatest proponents to longevity.
As simple as it is, Republi-Crats still choose to hack it apart, read into it and try to make it something it was never designed to be, a Washingtonian social sculpting tool! It was actually designed to be the antithesis of a road map to Government sanctioned norms.
The Constitution contains the rules and rights of a free and open Nation to be anything you wish, as long as you observe others rights to do the same. We do "hold those truths to be self evident", if they aren't self evident, Ignorance of the Law is actually a legitimate excuse for breaking it!
We may have more knowledge today than 230 years ago but we aren't any more intelligent as a whole. Stop puking out these progressive rules, regulations, Socio Psycho-Babble Re-programming, Ive had enough, the thought police must be eliminated! Get back to the basics of Maintaining a Democracy, Free Enterprise, Capitalist Society! Make and keep our union strong and stop getting sidetracked by our incessant urge to legislate sociological change.
Defend our Borders, keep the bad guys out and keep the people inside safe from those on the outside and the inside that wish to hurt us!
Protect the Citizens from fraud, waste, abuse of our National Wealth and Tax submissions by those elected or hired to serve publicly
Keep the Nations Water supplies, NRG delivery systems, Roads, Bridges and Highways maintained and safe
Arrest, Prosecute and Punish Criminals, speedy fair trials, either discharge or penalize!
I know, what does this have to do with Gay Marriage? If we hadn't been foolish enough to recognize Marriage as an undocumented Constitutional right to begin with "Back in the Day", this discussion wouldn't be happening now and we could be fixing whats wrong with this Nation instead of trying to change minds via changing definitions.
That's exactly what happens when you make laws that have no basis in the Constitution for their existence.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 30, 2011 8:05:13 GMT -5
You say that the South is a bit behind the times on allot of subjects, they also get allot right! In DEFENSE of the South, I have to give them credit for having a lot less legislation, taxation, and government interference our lives. Tennessee residents resist government intrusion. We don't have a state income tax, because the citizenry would rather have EVERYONE pay for government services with an equally leveled state sales tax that insures that everyone pays their fair share. They strongly resist rising costs in government. They simply don't tolerate it and they would rather live with less public services than to pay for aristocracy and buracracy. Most cities operate under "city manager" style city government. I myself don't live within the city, but the city has less political bickering and NONE of the silly crap like this ambulance fiasco has turned out to be, because they hire a competent city manager, whose business it is to manage the city. His position and his reputation depend on his efficiency and proficiency. Political positions such as councilman and mayor don't do the hiring and firing, and they don't have control of everyday spending for the most part. We don't have the luxury of wide shoulders on the roads or guard rails at every dip in the terrain, but then again, people seem to have enough sense to stay on the blacktop for the most part. It is much cheaper living here, and there's a much more laid back attitude toward government and politicians seem to take a more responsible attitude toward budgetary matters. With ALL the advantages and positive attributes of Southern living, and all the good friends I have made here, NY will ALWAYS be home to me. I am simply not able to acclimate to the loss of good ethnic foods, the muddy bottom TVA lakes as opposed to our crystal clear Adirondack lakes of upstate NY, or the heat in summer. And that is the way it should be, people paying for the services they want and need and use. The concept of a city manager I've seen talked about once in awhile. Seems a better concept than electing more ineptitude who has no accountability and the only recourse is to try and recall the bums. Politics in the public sector has lead to lots of waste, fraud, inefficiency. When people are guaranteed a paycheck, what incentive is there to put in a day's effort?
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 30, 2011 8:07:06 GMT -5
Thank you, Firstamendment. But I doubt I have any expertise, just good ol' research and elbow grease. I'll rephrase. You're a little more inclined as to legal matters than most of us. Still an asset nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 30, 2011 8:11:25 GMT -5
The founders were not shortsighted in their sworn beliefs that "All Men are Created Equal". They were referring to Hu"Men"s. Obviously, the simplicity of the document has been one of its greatest proponents to longevity. The Constitution contains the rules and rights of a free and open Nation to be anything you wish, as long as you observe others rights to do the same. We do "hold those truths to be self evident", if they aren't self evident, Ignorance of the Law is actually a legitimate excuse for breaking it! I brought up the Declaration of Independence on the story comments last week after the marriage vote, on the OD. I was told the Declaration isn't a legal document, which is true. But its relevance cannot be understated at all. Without declaring our independence, there would not be a US Constitution in the first place and every law that has existed since. The Declaration is THE document that set the stage for us to have the ability to guarantee our rights and privaleges. To argue it has no relevance to the issue of equal rights in the context of marriage is rediculous. All men are created equal does not have an asterisk nor a footnote pointing to except women, blacks, gays, etc. ALL seems to be an encompassing word, yet we have seen discrimination. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense I believe in all cases, and Swimmy certainly can attest to that.
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jun 30, 2011 10:58:16 GMT -5
There was only one time when rights were taken away rather than expanded, & that was prohibition.
Obviously, that didn't work..
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 30, 2011 11:15:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 30, 2011 11:39:25 GMT -5
There was only one time when rights were taken away rather than expanded, & that was prohibition. Obviously, that didn't work.. What about when they took away our right to refuse to obtain health insurance? Or when they took away our right to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes strictly for private use without ever crossing state lines? Or when they took away our right to do with our property as we please, regardless whether some developer has a better idea for its use? Or when DC took away its citizens' second amendment rights? Or when they took away a black person's right to have equal access to schools white children go to (separate but equal)? Or when they took away our right to spend our income on what we choose?
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 30, 2011 12:02:06 GMT -5
Gay Marriage for Rhode Island, not exactly.....Rhode Island Lawmakers Approve Civil Unions Gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it allows religious organizations not to recognize the unions.“You’re never going to see us trumpet civil unions,” said Ray Sullivan, campaign director for Marriage Equality Rhode Island, the group that has led the push for same-sex marriage here. “We believe civil unions establish a second-class citizenry.”
Christopher Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, said the bill had “opened the door for the courts of Rhode Island to redefine marriage without a vote of the people.”PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Less than a week after same-sex marriage was legalized in New York, the Rhode Island State Senate on Wednesday evening approved a bill allowing not marriage, but civil unions for gay couples, despite fierce opposition from gay rights advocates who called the legislation discriminatory. Related ROOM FOR DEBATE Are Religion and Marriage Indivisible? Will the religious exemption to same-sex marriage laws undercut their long-term survival? The bill, which already passed in the state’s House of Representatives and which the governor said he was likely to sign, grants gay and lesbian couples most of the rights and benefits that Rhode Island provides married couples. It was offered as a compromise this spring after Gordon D. Fox, the openly gay speaker of the Democratic-controlled House, said he could not muster enough votes to pass a same-sex marriage bill. Gay marriage advocates initially had high hopes for success in Rhode Island this year. The new governor, Lincoln D. Chafee, an independent, had championed their cause, and Mr. Fox, who became speaker last year, also appeared eager to get a marriage bill passed. The state’s two closest neighbors, Connecticut and Massachusetts, allow gay couples to marry, as do New Hampshire and Vermont. But M. Teresa Paiva Weed, a Democrat and the State Senate president, opposes gay marriage, and Mr. Fox ultimately threw his support to civil unions, saying that was a more realistic goal. Gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it allows religious organizations not to recognize the unions. For example, they say, a Catholic hospital could choose not to allow a lesbian to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and a Catholic university could deny family medical leave to gay employees. CONTINUED AT: www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/us/30unions.html?_r=1&emc=na
|
|