For those who want a legal end to Gay Marriage

[bookgirl32]

Becuase this country was founded on the principles of a limited government, and we have seemed to forget that. I realize God is not a democracy, but the US is. And thus, the law is as the majority say it is, regardless of if it is “right” or not.

Just as a frame of refrence i also support the Supreme Court’s decision to allow flag burning. I support the right of Media to print information that could slow US operations. I support the right of the KKK to assemble.

However i would not burn a flag, print national security information, or become a Klansman.

They can do it becuase the Constitution does not forbid it. And if it isnt expressly forbidden, than it is the right of the people.

You should read the poem “First they came…” it pretty much embodies why i fight as hard as I do

Abortion is also the right of the people . . . The government is not always right.

I still hold to my point that marriage is legal for everyone. To change the definition of marriage, even the legal one, based on one group of people, could very well be seen as violating the rights of others.

 

[BamaRider]

Salsa told the Bookgirl this-

Becuase this country was founded on the principles of a limited government, and we have seemed to forget that. I realize God is not a democracy, but the US is. And thus, the law is as the majority say it is, regardless of if it is “right” or not.

Just as a frame of refrence i also support the Supreme Court’s decision to allow flag burning. I support the right of Media to print information that could slow US operations. I support the right of the KKK to assemble.

However i would not burn a flag, print national security information, or become a Klansman.

They can do it becuase the Constitution does not forbid it. And if it isnt expressly forbidden, than it is the right of the people.

You should read the poem “First they came…” it pretty much embodies why i fight as hard as I do

So I’ll ask the Senor this-

If we allow gays to redefine what makes a marriage, what are we gonna tellt the next group of wackos that say 3 or 4 folks make a good marriage to them, and now they want to be treated fairly to accomdate* their *lifestyle.

 

[danica]

Gay marriage was not created by God. Therefore, anything that is not from God is from Satan.

Take it like this: when we’re with Christ in Heaven, do you think he’d marry a gay couple?

Yes? No?

If no, then why would He consent it here on Earth?

The Lord directly condemns any form of homosexuality. Who are we to go against it?

This was just my 2 cents.

 

[mlchance]

laws are generally made to include those who were unconstitionally excluded. Not the other way around

You’re begging the question. No one has a constitutional right to get married; therefore, no one is discriminated against if they cannot marry.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[SenorSalsa]

You’re begging the question. No one has a constitutional right to get married; therefore, no one is discriminated against if they cannot marry.

– Mark L. Chance.

I agree, it is not a right given by the constitution, but our right to get married is protected by the Constition.

Abortion is also the right of the people . . . The government is not always right.

I still hold to my point that marriage is legal for everyone. To change the definition of marriage, even the legal one, based on one group of people, could very well be seen as violating the rights of others.

Kinda like how changing the defintion of person, even the legal one, based on slaves, violated the rights of all the free people?

If we allow gays to redefine what makes a marriage, what are we gonna tellt the next group of wackos that say 3 or 4 folks make a good marriage to them, and now they want to be treated fairly to accomdate* their *lifestyle.

This is a tough one for me to make an argument for, becuase based on my beliefs on how the Nat Govt should run, it should be allowed, however it is so obviously absurd that it could never work. Who would get your life insurance? wouldnt it make a second class wife/husband out of one of them? The health issues would grow exponentially, etc. In that case, i would say that the direct harm and legal confusion that would be caused would overrule rights, and fall under the Congresses ability to use the “necessary and proper” clause of the constition

The Lord directly condemns any form of homosexuality. Who are we to go against it?

This was just my 2 cents.

as ive said before though, God is not part of our Govt. He gave us free will to do that. And the govt was formed to purposely not make the US a theocracy. What our God tells us is Truth, may be a lie according to someone elses god. Our govt does not have the authority to rule on which God/god is right

 

[bookgirl32]

Kinda like how changing the defintion of person, even the legal one, based on slaves, violated the rights of all the free people?

Nope, this made slavery illegal for ALL people. Not something LEGAL for SOME people.

 

[bookgirl32]

it is so obviously absurd that it could never work

.

But you could have a whole group of people, polygamists, that claim you’re violating their rights by saying this.

 

[bookgirl32]

I could make a case that it does effect others in that it contributes to the degeneration of the “culture of life” when it is supported in today’s culture, media, and possibly government

.

What DO you think about this SS? It’s not really even a fully developed thought from me , I’m just curious.

 

[SenorSalsa]

.

But you could have a whole group of people, polygamists, that claim you’re violating their rights by saying this.

like i said, based solely on the high risk of STDs and other health issues that arise, the harm directly caused by allowing such a lifestyle could probably be reason to outlaw. But im not definatively stating this, becuase i have not resaoned this one out fully

Nope, this made slavery illegal for ALL people. Not something LEGAL for SOME people.

but it also changed the definition of what a person was. just as we would essentially(thought not actually legally) change the definition of waht a marriagei s

.

What DO you think about this SS? It’s not really even a fully developed thought from me , I’m just curious.

the first two are coved under freedom of speech and press. The second is essentially covered all rights, since the Gov is a government of the people and by the people.

 

[bookgirl32]

like i said, based solely on the high risk of STDs and other health issues that arise, the harm directly caused by allowing such a lifestyle could probably be reason to outlaw. But im not definatively stating this, becuase i have not resaoned this one out fully

I get you haven’t thought this one out completely, but I’ll stop you right here. High risk of STD’s and other health issues are a HUGE component of homosexual behavior (AIDS in the 80’s?), so you’re almost arguing against yourself here.

 

[bookgirl32]

the first two are coved under freedom of speech and press. The second is essentially covered all rights, since the Gov is a government of the people and by the people.

I agree, but could it still be considered a violation of my personal rights? And if it is, then could it be said that even a government by the people could not be expected to protect the rights of all people in their preferences?

 

[Mighty_Q]

I agree, it is not a right given by the constitution, but our right to get married is protected by the Constition.

And a gay man is free to marry any willing woman he sees fit.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I get you haven’t thought this one out completely, but I’ll stop you right here. High risk of STD’s and other health issues are a HUGE component of homosexual behavior (AIDS in the 80’s?), so you’re almost arguing against yourself here.

this was due to the promiscuous nature of the people not the homosexuality

 

[SenorSalsa]

I agree, but could it still be considered a violation of my personal rights? And if it is, then could it be said that even a government by the people could not be expected to protect the rights of all people in their preferences?

as the saying goes “your fists rights end at my nose” nobody’s rights can trump anothers

 

[bookgirl32]

And a gay man is free to marry any willing woman he sees fit.

Exactly!

 

[bookgirl32]

as the saying goes “your fists rights end at my nose” nobody’s rights can trump anothers

That’s exactly what I’m saying.

 

[bookgirl32]

this was due to the promiscuous nature of the people not the homosexuality

So homosexuals were more promiscuous than heterosexuals?

 

[pathia]

If only there were such things as powers of attorney and wills.

– Mark L. Chance.

My fiance and I have this arrangement. That didn’t stop his family from removing me from his bedside at the hospital and having another lawyer saying their legal rights trump mine. Nevermind that he hadn’t been in their lives for many years and had nothing to do with them, and didn’t want them there.

The DOMA in this state prohibits anything that ‘resembles’ marriage or civil union or domestic partnership. This made our documents of power of attonery and wills invalid, because we are ‘simulating’ marriage.

He eventually recovered enough to tell the doctors to throw them out (They are pentocostal and wanted to do prayer therapy for a head wound as opposed to…well…medicine), but it was very touch and go for a few weeks.

 

[mlchance]

The DOMA in this state prohibits anything that ‘resembles’ marriage or civil union or domestic partnership. This made our documents of power of attonery and wills invalid, because we are ‘simulating’ marriage.

DOMA should have nothing to do with powers of attorney or wills. If Virginia’s rolling that way, it has exceeded the mandate of DOMA. That point aside, the solution is for the law to recognize powers of attorney and wills for what they are, not to redefine the bedrock social relationship of society to fit the disordered desires of a bare fraction of the population.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[pathia]

DOMA should have nothing to do with powers of attorney or wills. If Virginia’s rolling that way, it has exceeded the mandate of DOMA. That point aside, the solution is for the law to recognize powers of attorney and wills for what they are, not to redefine the bedrock social relationship of society to fit the disordered desires of a bare fraction of the population.

– Mark L. Chance.

Good luck on getting the law to do anything in my favor. Here in Virginia and the DC area in particular I have little to no rights even to exist. Virginia has a state DOMA, and it’s stronger than the federal DOMA.

There was a famous case a few years back, a transsexual woman was in a car accident. The EMTs once finding out it was a ‘man with breasts’ while doing CPR actually stepped back and started laughing, while the witnesses to the accident had to jeer and yell at them to get back to actually you know…saving her life.

I was assaulted once, had a broken arm, fractured kneecap and a disorienting head trauma from someone outraged by my mere existence and when I tried to get the cops to arrest him, they LAUGHED at me and mocked me for being what I am instead of doing their civic duty.

I don’t want special rights, I just want to be treated like an actual human being and given at least SOME dignity, and have people judge me on my character and my abilities. That’s apparently too much to ask for from most individuals where I live.

Thankfully I’m at the point now where I can go mostly unseen and unnoticed, but that’s because I have had to learn how to hide, how to blend in, how to not be my normal self, all in attempts to just live without fear. I am always afraid to interact with my coworkers, for fear that I may end up getting fired again if too much is discerned from their conversations with me. It makes me more paranoid than I normally am, and that’s saying something!