Paul/Palin 2016... Possible GOP Ticket?

[Robo]

So we have rights but only if someone is agreeable?

If you force someone to marry your sorry ass that isn’t AGREEABLE numb-nuts you’re violating their right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness asshole!! You can’t assume a right that violates somebody else’s rights. Christie Brinkley wouldn’t piss down your Taliban neck!!

That doesn't sound like we really have the right to marry whomever we please.

Keep grasping at straws Goober, sooner or later you might, just might realize how fucking stupid you’re projecting yourself.

That was your claim, now you are walking it back.

My claim Goober was every ADULT has the constitutional right to marry anybody they want who is ADULT and AGREEABLE.

Don’t worry Goober, I seriously doubt that anybody here expects you to understand that oh so complicated notion.

So did you misinterpret the Constitution? Are you sure you know what it guarantees as a right and what it doesn't? It sounds like you might be confused on that, but you are definitely confused about what "marriage" means and what "marriage" is.

OK Goober, since you’re so radically positive I’ve misinterpreted the Constitution, then you have at it! Interpret the following and explain how it’s doesn’t apply to marriage contracts for every agreeable adult.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, United States Constitution)

“……….No State shall make or enforce any law that………. deny any person the equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14, United States Constitution)

You keep mistaking homosexual relationships for marriages, and these are two completely different things. We can discuss what the fundamental differences are, if we need to.

Here’s my fundamental proof Goober, where’s yours?

ENCARTA ENGLISH DICTIONARY
MARRIAGE is (1) a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. (2) a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse. (3) the joining together in wedlock of two people. (4) the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock.

 

[philly rabbit]

Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years. We can't up and decide that popping a cap in our neighbors is "free speech" because we say so. The Constitution doesn't allow you to do that, and nothing in law or ethics permits such a thing. We can't alter the definitions and meanings of things, in order to make something "constitutional." Now, you and your pervert friends can do that here, you can redefine all over the place and slap each other on the back for being so clever, but our Constitution and rule of law simply doesn't allow us this freedom, unless it is specifically done by the people through amendment ratification.

And I agree with this.

 

[maineman]

Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years. We can't up and decide that popping a cap in our neighbors is "free speech" because we say so. The Constitution doesn't allow you to do that, and nothing in law or ethics permits such a thing. We can't alter the definitions and meanings of things, in order to make something "constitutional." Now, you and your pervert friends can do that here, you can redefine all over the place and slap each other on the back for being so clever, but our Constitution and rule of law simply doesn't allow us this freedom, unless it is specifically done by the people through amendment ratification.

clearly, in the brief history of our nation, we have redefined marriage already. We certainly can, and will do so again.... very soon.

DOMA is as good as dead, and the only reason SCOTUS will sidestep Prop 8 is because they can see that same handwriting on the wall - the political winds are blowing and gay marriage will be accepted - and legal - across the land within a decade or two.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Protest this Goober!
http://www.arlnow.com/2012/02/14/gay-couple-denied-marriage-license-at-arlington-courthouse/

I've already responded to that when someone else posted it. No one was denied ANYTHING because they were homosexual. The fact you can run out there and find a revised, politically corrected definition of marriage, doesn't mean anything in this debate. Marriage is the union in holy matrimony, of a male and female. It doesn't matter how many politically correct dictionaries change their definitions to support your misunderstanding.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OK Goober, since you’re so radically positive I’ve misinterpreted the Constitution, then you have at it! Interpret the following and explain how it’s doesn’t apply to marriage contracts for every agreeable adult.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, United States Constitution)

“……….No State shall make or enforce any law that………. deny any person the equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14, United States Constitution)

We've been over this, the problem is not your interpretation of the 9th and 14th, it is your definition of what "marriage" is. Now, if you want to argue that the people have the right to decide same sex domestic partnership is the same as marriage, then you do have a point, but if they have this right, they also have the right to determine this is NOT marriage, and marriage is between a man and woman. The 9th and 14th give the people just as much right to determine one way as the other.

 

[maineman]

I've already responded to that when someone else posted it. No one was denied ANYTHING because they were homosexual. The fact you can run out there and find a revised, politically corrected definition of marriage, doesn't mean anything in this debate. Marriage is the union in holy matrimony, of a male and female. It doesn't matter how many politically correct dictionaries change their definitions to support your misunderstanding.

it's "awful" that you would say that.

 

[maineman]

and if the union needs to be in "holy matrimony", are all those atheists who get married by judges and notaries NOT married?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If you force someone to marry your sorry ass that isn’t AGREEABLE numb-nuts you’re violating their right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness asshole!! You can’t assume a right that violates somebody else’s rights. Christie Brinkley wouldn’t piss down your Taliban neck!!

Then the Constitution simply doesn't give us the right you claimed, to marry whomever we please. Thanks for PWNING yourself for me, not that I was needing any help, but I appreciate it. As we can see, there are criteria attached to this supposed "right" we have. In addition to a partner who is agreeable, the partner also has to be alive, human, and of legal age, not too closely related, and the partner has to be of the opposite sex.

The Constitution does give us the right to change marriage and include same sex couples, if that's what the people vote to do. However, since it gives us this right, it also gives the same right to reaffirm marriage is between a man and woman.

By perverting marriage to include homosexuals, you are directly attacking a ritual which is part of people's religious exercise. If you are correct about not assuming a right that violates the rights of others, then this has to be taken into consideration. People do have the right to freely exercise their religion, which includes retaining their rituals as sacred. You can't use the law to make a mockery of religious customs, and still be guaranteeing the freedom of religious expression.

 

[maineman]

Then the Constitution simply doesn't give us the right you claimed, to marry whomever we please. Thanks for PWNING yourself for me, not that I was needing any help, but I appreciate it. As we can see, there are criteria attached to this supposed "right" we have. In addition to a partner who is agreeable, the partner also has to be alive, human, and of legal age, not too closely related, and the partner has to be of the opposite sex.

The Constitution does give us the right to change marriage and include same sex couples, if that's what the people vote to do. However, since it gives us this right, it also gives the same right to reaffirm marriage is between a man and woman.

By perverting marriage to include homosexuals, you are directly attacking a ritual which is part of people's religious exercise. If you are correct about not assuming a right that violates the rights of others, then this has to be taken into consideration. People do have the right to freely exercise their religion, which includes retaining their rituals as sacred. You can't use the law to make a mockery of religious customs, and still be guaranteeing the freedom of religious expression.

again... do civil ceremonies attack a ritual which is part of people's religious exercise? And where, in the constitution, does it say anything about marriage at all? And if gays get married by a justice of the peace, how does that violate the rights of religious folks any more or less than non-religious marriages between men and women?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

clearly, in the brief history of our nation, we have redefined marriage already. We certainly can, and will do so again.... very soon.

DOMA is as good as dead, and the only reason SCOTUS will sidestep Prop 8 is because they can see that same handwriting on the wall - the political winds are blowing and gay marriage will be accepted - and legal - across the land within a decade or two.

I predict one of two things will happen. We will either resolve this issue in much the way I have articulated, with comprehensive civil unions legislation, which takes "marriage" completely off the table and 'divorces' governments from the marriage business. Or, the backlash from activists pushing gay marriage down our throats, will result in a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

What I predict we will NEVER have, is Constitutional protection for the right to 'marry' on the basis of our sexual proclivities. Because if we ever DO allow this to be the case, the can of worms opened will not be desirable for decent Americans. We already know Liberals have absolutely no problem with incestual marriage or polygamist marriage, and I wonder how many secretly wouldn't care about child marriage or animal marriage? And if the Constitution protect homosexuals and allows them to legitimize their behavior through marriage, why wouldn't it apply to other abnormal sexuality? I never get an honest constitutional answer to this question, I get chortled and ridiculed for even asking. But the question remains, how do we grant 'equal protection' to one sexuality and not to all the others?

 

[maineman]

I have always said that I thought the government should get the hell out of the marriage business altogether and only give licenses to form civil unions.... and churches should get out of the civil union business and only perform marriages for those people who meet their religious requirements. If some churches were OK with marrying gay couples, they could do so and others would never be required to follow suit. The benefits under the law would have nothing to do with "marital status", but only concern themselves with the civil contracts that the government licensed.

 

[Howey]

NO THEY ARE NOT! IF YOU CAN SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE ANY PERSON IN AMERICA HAS BEEN DENIED A MARRIAGE LICENSE, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF LICENSE, ON THE BASIS THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL, I WILL JOIN YOU IN VEHEMENT PROTEST!

Look, dumbfuck. Prop 8 denied homosexuals the right to marry. Period. There you have it. Thousands and thousands of cases that prove you wrong.

http://www.google.com/search?q=homo...license&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Here's some more...

And like I said, show me where they were denied a marriage license because they are homosexuals? They didn't qualify for a marriage license because they weren't male and female, they are of the same gender. That kind of union is not a marriage. If these same gay people showed up at the courthouse with a partner of the opposite sex, they could obtain a marriage license, they would not be denied one on the basis of their homosexuality.

I never have said it denies gays the right to marry. In fact, gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, there is no prerequisite of sexuality required for a marriage license. Marriage is the union of a male and female, that is where the problem is. You seem to be confusing something that isn't marriage, with what actually is marriage.

I've already responded to that when someone else posted it. No one was denied ANYTHING because they were homosexual. The fact you can run out there and find a revised, politically corrected definition of marriage, doesn't mean anything in this debate. Marriage is the union in holy matrimony, of a male and female. It doesn't matter how many politically correct dictionaries change their definitions to support your misunderstanding.

See above.

Dixie?

WHY DO YOU FUCKING CARE?????????????

HOW HAS GAY MARRIAGE AFFECTED YOU??????????????


BTW...Did you read this?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?50382-Gay-Marriage-As-Old-As-Hetero-Marriage

 

[philly rabbit]

The queer pushers are all in the same boat.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

again... do civil ceremonies attack a ritual which is part of people's religious exercise? And where, in the constitution, does it say anything about marriage at all? And if gays get married by a justice of the peace, how does that violate the rights of religious folks any more or less than non-religious marriages between men and women?

IF a bar wanted to skirt blue laws about being open on Sunday, and they came up with this brilliant idea... They will begin serving wine and bruschetta on Sundays and call it Eucerest! The law can't prohibit this, can they? Well, of course it can, because we can't just go call something what we want, in order to make it okay to do. Especially when it's a religious ritual, because the religious ritual is a fundamental component of religious exercise, which is guaranteed under the Constitution.

This raises the question, why is government entangled in a largely religious ritual? Pro-gay marriage libertarians amaze me! They are asking the wrong questions, they should be speaking out against ANY government recognition of our domestic arrangements. It shouldn't matter to the government if we are gay or straight, or even a couple. The issue shouldn't be to allow gays to marry, it should be to disallow the government from recognizing ANY domestic relationship.

 

[philly rabbit]

Then the Constitution simply doesn't give us the right you claimed, to marry whomever we please. Thanks for PWNING yourself for me, not that I was needing any help, but I appreciate it. As we can see, there are criteria attached to this supposed "right" we have. In addition to a partner who is agreeable, the partner also has to be alive, human, and of legal age, not too closely related, and the partner has to be of the opposite sex.

The Constitution does give us the right to change marriage and include same sex couples, if that's what the people vote to do. However, since it gives us this right, it also gives the same right to reaffirm marriage is between a man and woman.

By perverting marriage to include homosexuals, you are directly attacking a ritual which is part of people's religious exercise. If you are correct about not assuming a right that violates the rights of others, then this has to be taken into consideration. People do have the right to freely exercise their religion, which includes retaining their rituals as sacred. You can't use the law to make a mockery of religious customs, and still be guaranteeing the freedom of religious expression.

I admire you for calling for unity in order to defeat these people soundly.

But you see what happens with this queer marriage example.

The tax codes are something that are vastly more important than twinkle toes weddings because changing them and ridding the country of the IRS does numerous things to promote individual liberty and decrease federal power immensely but hoping ideologue libertarians such as these will unite with us is sheer hopelessness.

They are social libertine progressives but the constitution says nothing about defining marriage in the first place immediately making it a states issue to begin with.

Their social circles are made up of liberals and they have been since college and it's leftists whom they admire greatly and always shall.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have always said that I thought the government should get the hell out of the marriage business altogether and only give licenses to form civil unions.... and churches should get out of the civil union business and only perform marriages for those people who meet their religious requirements. If some churches were OK with marrying gay couples, they could do so and others would never be required to follow suit. The benefits under the law would have nothing to do with "marital status", but only concern themselves with the civil contracts that the government licensed.

And oddly enough, you and I hold the exact same viewpoint on how to solve the problem. So here we have two individuals who agree on how to solve a problem, but we continue to argue back and forth about the problem. Does this make sense to you? Can you explain why we are doing this? If you're having trouble, I have an explanation...

It is because, even though rational and reasonable people can agree on a solution which would ultimately give every side what they want and resolve the issue completely forever, the extremist elements on both sides do not want the issue to be resolved, because it is very effective at dividing us and stirring up our emotions. There is too much potential political advantage to be lost, if we resolve this issue. To the extremist elements, this is a crusade and showdown, and one their side must win. Reasonable people become caught up in this, and the perpetuation of the "issue" becomes more important than the reasonable solution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I admire you for calling for unity in order to defeat these people soundly.

But you see what happens with this queer marriage example.

The tax codes are something that are vastly more important than twinkle toes weddings because changing them and ridding the country of the IRS does numerous things to promote individual liberty and decrease federal power immensely but hoping ideologue libertarians such as these will unite with us is sheer hopelessness.

They are social libertine progressives but the constitution says nothing about defining marriage in the first place immediately making it a states issue to begin with.

Their social circles are made up of liberals and they have been since college and it's leftists whom they admire greatly and always shall.

Just so you are aware, there is no law against gay weddings. In 1986, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama. Gay people are perfectly free to hold a wedding ceremony in all 50 states. One (or both) of them can wear a wedding gown, they can throw rice and eat wedding cake, dance, take pictures and do wedding albums, go on honeymoons, or anything else they please. They just can't get a state license of marriage, because marriage is between a man and woman. IF gay people want to marry someone of the opposite sex, they are as free to do so as anyone else, not one state in America prohibits homosexuals from marrying.

The government shouldn't have any business sanctioning or endorsing ANY domestic relationship. From a legal perspective, in terms of insurance or property, beneficiaries, heirs, etc., there may be a need for some domestic distinction, and this can be fairly and easily modified to include any two consenting adults who have a civil union contract with each other. It doesn't have to be about gays or straights, or even marriage and weddings.

Here is the problem the proponents of gay marriage are facing, their very argument over constitutionality can be used against them as easily as it can be used for them. If the government has the right to make gay marriage legal, then it also has the right to make traditional marriage the law of the land. If the people have the right to decide gay marriage is legal, then they also have the same right to determine gay marriage is not legal.

 

[philly rabbit]

"If the people have the right to decide gay marriage is legal, then they also have the same right to determine gay marriage is not legal."


........... in the different states.

 

[Phantasmal]

Palin's duties as vice president would be limited and unless something happened to Paul you wouldn't have much to worry about.

Other than that I agree with most of what you said above.

Palin has become Hollywoodized. She is enormously wealthy now but she's still hated because of her more traditional roots and the fact that the left wants a Marxist liberal feminist first in the White house.

She is hated becuse she is ignorant and self centered. She didn't give two hoots about Alaska, it was all about self promotion. She still is about her self promotion. She is a quiter! She is superficial.

 

[Phantasmal]

Homosexuals are not being denied the right to form legal contracts with one another defined as marriage. They can't enter into such contracts with people who are the same gender, because that is not marriage. There are LOTS of things that aren't marriage, that both gay people and straight people are not allowed to do and call marriage. We don't fuck goats and call that marriage. We don't have sex with kids and call that marriage. It doesn't matter that some people would like the right to do this, the Constitution gives them no such right.

You are the one who is trying to play word games. You are trying to call homosexual relationships "marriage" when that isn't what "marriage" means. Because you've taken something that is not marriage, and decided to call it marriage anyway, doesn't mean you have some legitimate complaint. The Constitution, and nothing about Western democracy, gives you the right to redefine things so that you can legitimize behavior, and that is exactly what you want to do here.

I've said it plenty of times, I fully sympathize with gay couples who seek the same benefits of married couples. But we can resolve their issue without redefining marriage or taking a big steamy dump on religion, which is what this is really all about. We can resolve this issue in a way that gives every side what they claim to want, and ends this debate forever, and treats everyone with fairness and respect, while disengaging government from sanctioning religious tradition OR sexual behavior. But the activists don't want this solution, it takes the issue off the table, and doesn't allow them to exploit it for political gain.

You are a hair splitter.