What's wrong with the Republicans and how to fix it

[Robo]

Because as libertarians disregard the needs of society, progressives want to destroy all elements of western Christian society.

The constitution says nothing about marriage so it should be defined by the states.

But the Constitution says plenty about individual rights and equal ,protection of the law and that covers soooooo many, many issues including marriage contracts. Correctly defined, it tells government at every level to butt the fuck out of agreeable marriage contracts. It’s a principle I endorse and promote.

“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…………….nor deny any person within it’s jurisdiction equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14, United States Constitution)

 

[Independent]

Marriage is a religious issue.

Civil Union contracts are governmental issues.

Marriage should not be redefined because of separation of church and state.

Civil Unions should be allowed between any two legally competent adults as a contractual agreement.

It really is not that difficult if one simply uses a little bit of logic.

 

[Robo]

Because as libertarians disregard the needs of society, progressives want to destroy all elements of western Christian society.

The constitution says nothing about marriage so it should be defined by the states.

Western Christian Society is protected by the Constitution but only to the degree that it mind its own business and not enforce its principles and prejudices outside of its collective following through the force of government

If it’s principles and prejudices are an accepted philosophy ordained by God, then you should have no fear of its failing if you truly believe that your God is all powerful. If God wanted humans to not be free, God would have made it so, don’t you think? By what authority does Christianity or any religion believe it is ordained by any God to force its principles and prejudices by way of human government on anybody? If your God needs your force of human government, is your God really the ”ALL MIGHTY?”

 

[Robo]

Marriage is a religious issue.

Civil Union contracts are governmental issues.

Marriage should not be redefined because of separation of church and state.

Civil Unions should be allowed between any two legally competent adults as a contractual agreement.

It really is not that difficult if one simply uses a little bit of logic.

So just call it something different and satisfy the religious? Did you ever think of running for a political office? Seems to me that’s the same cop-out politicians use. So, what if queers call their “civil union” a “marriage?” Do we lock them up for blasphemy or telling a fucking lie?

Marriage: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. (Encarta)

A pig by any other name is still a pig

 

[Independent]

So just call it something different and satisfy the religious? Did you ever think of running for a political office? Seems to me that’s the same cop-out politicians use. So, what if queers call their “civil union” a “marriage?” Do we lock them up for blasphemy or telling a fucking lie?

Marriage: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. (Encarta)

A pig by any other name is still a pig

To some degree it is just calling it a different name, but if that stops or minimizes the differences between the two sides than it is the right thing to do. it is called compromise.
Further, it goes farther than what the liberal agenda is. I think the sex of a person and their sexual relations with other legally capable adults is not in any way the governments business. The Civil Unions should be between ANY consenting adults and sex and sexual relations should have NOTHING to do with it. My belief is that government should stay out of my bedroom not just expand its definition of how far it can legally go into it. Tell me... Why should two women be able to marry but not two sisters? What is the legitimate reason for not allowing the two sisters to marry when procreation is no longer an issue? Why can't a father and adult son have a civil union particularly if the son has returned to take care of him in his old age yet two totally unrelated males can? Civil Unions should take the whole issue of sex out of the picture and simply make it a contractual agreement between two people who are cohabitating.

As for the religious aspect of it. Let any church or other non-profit (it is not that hard to file to be a non or not for profit organization) do whatever religious marriage that they want. Make it a legitimate statement between the two from a "belief" standpoint. Let those who wish to acknowledge the marriage do so and those who choose to not acknowledge it also do so. Keep the government out of the issue. I mean, you do believe in the separation of church and state, don't you?

This allows all people who wish to cohabitate the opportunity to have all the civil rights that a married couple presently has, not just the group that you support or screams the loudest.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Marriage is a religious issue.

Civil Union contracts are governmental issues.

Marriage should not be redefined because of separation of church and state.

Civil Unions should be allowed between any two legally competent adults as a contractual agreement.

It really is not that difficult if one simply uses a little bit of logic.

So every straight couple who is joined by a Justice of the Peace will have a civil union and not a marriage?

Also, if a religious group believes that gays should be able to marry in their faith, will the gov't recognize it?

 

[Independent]

So every straight couple who is joined by a Justice of the Peace will have a civil union and not a marriage?

Also, if a religious group believes that gays should be able to marry in their faith, will the gov't recognize it?

Answer #1 That is correct

Answer #2 To the degree that the government recognizes any other marriage. They would not have a civil union, however, until they applied to do so through a governmental authority.

 

[Howey]

Answer #1 That is correct

Answer #2 To the degree that the government recognizes any other marriage. They would not have a civil union, however, until they applied to do so through a governmental authority.

So until the straights actually get the civil union they lose any and all benefits of marriage?

Sounds good to me.

 

[Independent]

So until the straights actually get the civil union they lose any and all benefits of marriage?

Sounds good to me.

Yes. Again... the separation of "marriage" from "Civil Union" creates the separation of church and state that we claim that the founders wanted.

 

[philly rabbit]

Western Christian Society is protected by the Constitution but only to the degree that it mind its own business and not enforce its principles and prejudices outside of its collective following through the force of government

If it’s principles and prejudices are an accepted philosophy ordained by God, then you should have no fear of its failing if you truly believe that your God is all powerful. If God wanted humans to not be free, God would have made it so, don’t you think? By what authority does Christianity or any religion believe it is ordained by any God to force its principles and prejudices by way of human government on anybody? If your God needs your force of human government, is your God really the ”ALL MIGHTY?”

So if a state ( the people) wish to display religious historical symbols on and in front of state public buildings, you would demand the judicial have them removed.

You don't seem to understand that people within their respective states have the authority of government by the consent of the governed.

It isn't really none of your judicial business or the judge's for that matter to determine social definitions by your interpretations of constitutional provisions that do not clearly state any given social measures with the governance of state laws which automatically means that those measures are determined by the numerical majority within the different states.

Only through the states are the people given authority over the federal and only through the states can the people become a numerical majority while being a numerical minority federally.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So if a state ( the people) wish to display religious historical symbols on and in front of state public buildings, you would demand the judicial have them removed.

You don't seem to understand that people within their respective states have the authority of government by the consent of the governed.

It isn't really none of your judicial business or the judge's for that matter to determine social definitions by your interpretations of constitutional provisions that do not clearly state any given social measures with the governance of state laws which automatically means that those measures are determined by the numerical majority within the different states.

Only through the states are the people given authority over the federal and only through the states can the people become a numerical majority while being a numerical minority federally.

When what the states do violates the US Constitution, the judges are able (I say required) to intervene.

 

[philly rabbit]

When what the states do violates the US Constitution, the judges are able (I say required) to intervene.

And the judges are the most important aspect of your progressive agenda and have been for many, many years.

You can start with the supreme court which was supposed to be used to settle federal disputes and not to legislate laws within the states.

Most of what the supreme court decides should be handled by the different states instead in the first place.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

And the judges are the most important aspect of your progressive agenda and have been for many, many years.

You can start with the supreme court which was supposed to be used to settle federal disputes and not to legislate laws within the states.

Most of what the supreme court decides should be handled by the different states instead in the first place.

When a chief justice of a state supreme court orders a 2 ton granite religious monument placed in the lobby of the state supreme court (to the exclusion of every other item offered for display), who is supposed to see to it that this violation of the constitution is removed?

 

[Howey]

You can start with the supreme court which was supposed to be used to settle federal disputes and not to legislate laws within the states.

Where do you dream up this shit?

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

Most of what the supreme court decides should be handled by the different states instead in the first place.

Yet the Constitution gave them that right.

 

[philly rabbit]

When a chief justice of a state supreme court orders a 2 ton granite religious monument placed in the lobby of the state supreme court (to the exclusion of every other item offered for display), who is supposed to see to it that this violation of the constitution is removed?

The judicial court.

The people within the state placed it there as an historical emblem being the numerical majority of that state.

Refer to my last response above

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

The judicial court.

The people within the state placed it there as an historical emblem being the numerical majority of that state.

Refer to my last response above

I was referring to Judge Roy Moore placing the 2 ton monument to the 10 Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court. He also would not allow any other display in the lobby. And the people of the state most certainly did not put it there as an historical emblem.

 

[philly rabbit]

I was referring to Judge Roy Moore placing the 2 ton monument to the 10 Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court. He also would not allow any other display in the lobby. And the people of the state most certainly did not put it there as an historical emblem.

Did the people of the state remove it?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Did the people of the state remove it?

The people of the state got got petition signatures that numbered in the hundreds of thousands. But the people of the state did not trespass and remove it, no.

But even if the majority of the people wanted it, and it would not have been for historical reasons, such a blatant violation of the constitution is not legal.

 

[Robo]

So if a state ( the people) wish to display religious historical symbols on and in front of state public buildings, you would demand the judicial have them removed.

Did “the people” who favored the displays pay for them or the taxpayers? Are all/every religious group entitled by “the people” to display their particular religious symbols? You fail to fully describe the situation. If the taxpayers were forced to pay for the religious symbolism that would be an unconstitutional alliance between church and state. If every and all religious groups don’t have the ”equal right” to display on public property that would be a violation “equal protection of the law.”

You don't seem to understand that people within their respective states have the authority of government by the consent of the governed.

You don’t seem to realize that “the people” of every State have ratified the national Constitution and are thereby required to abide by its “rule of law.” Again I argue that America was never meant by its framers to be a majority rule democracy. America is supposed to be a “Constitutional Republic.” The “consent of the governed” is to be established by elected representation who are sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution Of the United States no matter what the majority want. If they want to violate the Constitution, they’re supposed to be shit out of luck unless they can “amend” the Constitution to get what they want.

It isn't really none of your judicial business or the judge's for that matter to determine social definitions by your interpretations of constitutional provisions that do not clearly state any given social measures with the governance of state laws which automatically means that those measures are determined by the numerical majority within the different states.

OK then, what’s your interpretation of the following constitutional amendments and how do you correlate your argument with constitutional rule of law?

“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…………….nor deny any person within it’s jurisdiction equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14, United States Constitution)

Only through the states are the people given authority over the federal and only through the states can the people become a numerical majority while being a numerical minority federally.

But “through the States” the people have no authority to violate the Constitution with State Law. If The People don’t like the Constitution, the Constitution has an “amendment process.” So, amend it if you can.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But the Constitution says plenty about individual rights and equal ,protection of the law and that covers soooooo many, many issues including marriage contracts. Correctly defined, it tells government at every level to butt the fuck out of agreeable marriage contracts. It’s a principle I endorse and promote.

“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…………….nor deny any person within it’s jurisdiction equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14, United States Constitution)

Here is the problem with your argument for gay marriage; The Constitution says plenty about individual rights and equal protection. If the government is supposed to butt the fuck out of "gay" marriage, why not "polygamist" marriage, or "animal" marriage? Or any number of other sexually deviate behaviors disguised as marriage for the sake of legitimizing the behavior? If the SCOTUS rules that marriage can be redefined to include or accommodate a specific sexual proclivity, then it also has to allow the inclusion of any sexual proclivity which doesn't violate the rights of others.

It's really easy for people to see this as an issue of inequality when it's not. If gay marriage is made law of the land, to the exclusion of all other non-traditional "marriages" of other individuals, that is when you would have a constitutional inequality. I've been posting this argument for years, and adversaries have laughed and asked me where all of these lawsuits are from the goat fuckers and pedophiles, but the thing is, we haven't had the ruling from the SCOTUS which would be the basis for this, that's what is being debated in SCOTUS now. If it is determined that gay people have the right to pervert the meaning of marriage, then we have to allow the same right to everyone who isn't harming another's rights. So then you say, but that would not mean 12-year old marriages, because this would be a violation of the parent's rights regarding their minor child, but age of consent is an arbitrary restriction, it can be very easily changed, and if we can change marriage, we can certainly change age of consent. They will argue that animals can't "consent" so they can't marry, but animals aren't given Constitutional rights, and the very nature of sexual bestiality requires an implied consent from the animal through participation... if a dog doesn't want to fuck a woman, it won't. You've given the "right" to homosexuals to redefine marriage to include their relationships, how can you deny the 'equal protection' for others?

Now having said all of this, many will automatically conclude that I am a homophobic hater of gays, and I oppose same sex unions. This is simply not the case. I have proposed, many times, a solution to this problem which would give every side pretty much what they want, and resolve the issue forever. Step one, establish that the government/law has no place in defining "marriage" or what that means to individuals. Step two, establish that ANY government/law recognition of domestic partnership is generic in nature, not related to sexuality or religion, and is simply acknowledged as a "civil union" of any two consenting adults. Problems solved! Churches and traditionalists can keep the sanctity of traditional marriage, gay couples can have the legal instrumentation of traditional couples, and there is the added benefit of opening the door for "platonic marriage" or arrangements which aren't homo or hetero sexual. This may include an adult child and their aging parent, or two sisters, or even two friends who happen to be compatible living together. Most importantly, we haven't redefined marriage to include a sexual behavior, and this is not a precedent used in the future to push for more perverse arguments regarding how "marriage" is defined.