[NIGHTWATCH]

God I like this guy! :D

ACLU Hasn't A-C-L-U-E
Saturday, November 01, 2003

By Dennis Miller

Hey, get this...I want to talk about the ACLU which, quite frankly, doesn’t have an A-C-L-U-E anymore.

The ACLU worked to postpone the California Recall, is fighting to get rid of public displays of the Ten Commandments, fighting against the Boy Scouts and for NAMBLA , the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Working to defend their rights! In short, on the wrong side of almost every issue. The American Civil Liberties Union is imploding and the wide array of life options it endorses seems to no longer include a belief in the traditional American way.

They have no use for common sense; they think it’s common. The big ACLU push during the holidays now is to get rid of public depictions of the Nativity Scene during Christmas. Yeah, that’s what’s wrong with the country, plastic depictions of Christ's birth. The ACLU has now degenerated to the point where they’ll fight against your right to erect a Nativity Scene but they’ll fight for the right of the local freak who stumbles into the scene and fondles one of the sheep.

Not that they’re always wrong. The ACLU is now helping to overturn a Mississippi state law that prohibits homosexual couples in that state from adopting children and I believe that is a fair-minded cause. But you know folks, while I’m not an expert on the subject, if you’re gay and you’ve chosen to set up shop in Mississippi, well even I’m reasonably sure that you’re not equipped to adopt children.

ACLU lawyers love to lounge around in the self-righteous ether until the 'atrocity alarm' goes off and then it’s down the fire pole, into their Bass Weejuns and right out the door to provide immediate succor and aid to the worst humanity has to offer, gallingly, all in the name of humanity.

And they always bring up our forefathers and say they were civil libertarians. C’mon, our forefathers would have never tolerated any of this current-day crap. For God’s sake, they were blowin’ guys' heads off because they put a tax on their breakfast beverage! And it wasn’t even coffee! Imagine how nuts they would have been on a 4-shot espresso.

Let me get this straight. We don’t hate people who prey on children anymore? Did I miss a meeting? Well, if we’re not gonna go sling blade on predators just tell me cause if that’s the case I’m gonna go live in Alec Baldwinia.

Got that?


LINK- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101939,00.html

[six 4 sure]

Now if we could just get him to change his mind on gun control.

six

[NIGHTWATCH]

Is he an ANTI??? :(

[Sean Smith]

I'd caution folks trying to gage his (or any other comedian's) politics based on what he says. Remember, he's a COMEDIAN. He'll take any "position," so long as there is a punchline at the end. That's neither good nor bad; that's comedy.

On the ACLU topic, I'd be inclined to agree with his point of view. The First Ammendment protects alot of things. It doesn't protect newsletters put out by the boy-buggering set that provide how-to instructions for getting away with child rape.

In more general terms, it seems like alot of formerly grass-roots organizations that were concieved for noble reasons have degenerated into a mix of malice, self-aggrandizement, and bad comedy. NOW comes to mind here... it is a long way from "equal pay for equal work" and "prosecution rates for rape are a joke" to the present fruitiness involving the vehement defense of women who drown their children in the bathtub, etc.

[ACP230]

ACLU = American Criminal's Lobby and Union.

[Dannyboy]

I saw Dennis Miller live in September. This was one of his funnier bits. The best ones were about all the Democratic Presidential candidates. No matter how he feels about guns, I think it's safe to say he's seen the error of his ways...politically, at least. However, nobody's perfect.

[Andrew Rothman]

The First Ammendment protects alot of things. It doesn't protect newsletters put out by the boy-buggering set that provide how-to instructions for getting away with child rape.

Sorry. It does. Speech is speech.

No matter how unpleasant and illegal USING the words may be, the words are protected.

Freedom's a bitch, ain't it?

. The ACLU has now degenerated to the point where they’ll fight against your right to erect a Nativity Scene

No, just fight against the STATE erecting one. Big difference, left out, presumably, for the sake of comedy.

[Benjamin]

No matter how he feels about guns, I think it's safe to say he's seen the error of his ways...politically, at least.


I have to echo what Mr. Smith said earlier -- he's a paid performer. He has a financial stake in appealing to his audience. Now that Bush's approval rate is substantial and the democrats are unorganized, it makes sense to ping on them.

If, in 2 years we're in the Dean administration, Miller will be cracking jokes about the Iraq debacle.


Carlin did the same thing -- the bit about Reagan's gang (400+ indictments and arrests within first administration; preventative arrest) then switched to G H W Bush, then started attacking Clinton once the impeachment bit got into full swing.

It's entertainment, take it as that.


As for the larger matter of the ACLU:
Yes, they take some godawful cases. They threatened to sue my high school because my principal instituted a breathalyzer test for anyone trying to attend dances.

That said, they do some good, and they frequently take cases where no one else is willing to get involved.

As for "ACLU = American Criminal's Lobby and Union." Maybe. But if they were amenable to the second amendment, who else would be stepping up to defend someone with the wrong gas piston in a FAL?

[Sean Smith]

Sorry. It does. Speech is speech.

Not true. Your statement is objectively false. Legally speaking, not all speech is protected. Nor should it be. Child pornography is a form of "speech," too. It is also (depending on the form it takes, e.g. video or photographs) direct evidence of the crime of child molestation. Of course, there is no right to take part in a crime either, even if you are only involved verbally or in writing... another case of "unprotected speech" (aka conspiracy to commit a crime, conspiracy after the fact, aiding and abetting, et. al.)

But to be more precise, NAMBLA has no right to exist at all, since by they are a criminal enterprise. We might as well be talking about the Mafia's right to publish a newsletter... the organizations in question have no right to exist at all. Therefore, protecting their free-speech rights is absurd.

[Jeeper]

Sean

A newsletter about how to commit an act IS protected under the first ammendment. The difference between that and videos is that a crime has occured in the video already. Conspiracy actually requires some act in furtherance of the crime. A publication by itself does not meet that standard. A publication on how to rape is no different than the many publications at every gun show on how to build silencers and bombs. It is the same on showing on the internet how to build a nuke. It is protected. True it doesnt take much to change that into a conspiracy but there is still a line there.

In general the only speech that needs to be protected is the speech that is not popular. Saying that "I like puppies" doesnt need protecting. Saying "I hate ..... because he is.........." is what the first amendment was meant to protect.

[Keith]

No matter how unpleasant and illegal USING the words may be, the words are protected.

Great! Why don't you start a web site devoted to showing how to convert common semi's into automatic weapons? I'm sure the ACLU will come along and help out after the BATF blows in your doors, shoots your pets and drags you away to prison.

Really... the ACLU will be right there for you, honest... trust me on this...

Keith

[AZRickD]

Dennis Miller had begun his "conversion" as far back at the Clinton administration.

I recall him applauding the writing of Peggy Noonan on MNFootball of all places (Al Michaels agreed), this was long before 9/11 and Dubya's high poll ratings.

He has done numerous interviews about his "conversion." In a nutshell, he said the policies the Democrats were touting began to make less and less sense to him. If you care about this issue, and I doubt you really do, you can look them up on the web.

Rick

[Malone LaVeigh]

Notice he managed to get in a slam on Mississippi. Pompous twit.

[Hkmp5sd]

Why don't you start a web site devoted to showing how to convert common semi's into automatic weapons?

That information is legal and available.

http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/media/C-024_SELECT_FIRE_.jpg http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/media/C-127_FULL_AUTO_VO.jpg http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/media/C-414_SELECT_FIRE.jpg http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/media/C-685_FullAutoAK47.jpg

or perhaps this bestseller....

http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/media/C-9260_FULL_AUTO_MOD_MAN_WHOLES.jpg
Full Auto Modification Manual
Item # C-9260
$18.95
Here, in one book, are the full plans and instructions for the conversion to selective fire of 7 of the most popular weapons. Includes plans for the HK 91, HK93, Mac-10, Mac-11, AR-15, Mini-14 and the M1 Carbine. 51/2 x 81/2, 71 pages, softcover, illus.

Full Auto Conversions (http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/fullautoconversions.html)

[Keith]

Yeah, I know it's available. Most of that stuff was distributed by an outfit in Boulder Colorado called Palladin Press and they were raided several times and got caught up in numerous legal fights.

I don't know if they are still in business, but the ACLU never showed up to help them. The ACLU never shows up to help in second amendment cases. And they don't show in first amendment cases where the seond amendment comes into play - as in Palladin Press.

Keith

[Malone LaVeigh]

Amazing what you can find with a quick google search:

http://fhss.byu.edu/polsci/schulzke/conlaw/articles/hitmancase.htm

Rice v. Palladin Enterprises, Inc. (96-31). The legal question in this case is whether the publisher of a book that tells how to commit murder and get away with it (the so-called "Hit Man Manual") can be held liable to the heirs of victims who were killed by a person who followed the instructions in the book.
In 1996 we filed an amicus brief in the district court, together with the ACLU of Maryland, the ACLU of Colorado (where the publisher is located), and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, arguing that under the First Amendment the publisher of a general-circulation book, magazine or newspaper is not legally responsible for crimes committed by people who read the material. The district court (Williams, J.) agreed and dismissed the case.

[Keith]

Ah, well... I exit stage left....


Keith

[Don Galt]

Why are there so few people who support the whole bill of rights?

Gun owners who only care about the second and want to outlaw homosexuality are just as bad as liberals (including our president) who want to outlaw guns.

And the ACLU, generally takes cases in the defense of liberty... even though they fail to recognize the second ammendment. They're no worse, and no better, they're typical.

[Hkmp5sd]

I've never seen a gun owner defending the 2nd Amendment while calling to make homosexuality illegal. Most don't care what people do in their homes. They do tend to be against any laws that allow same sex marriages.

Groups focusing on the other Amendments, yet fighting against the 2nd, fall into a couple of categories. The rich, that can hire armed bodyguards (ie Rosie), want to ban guns from all others because they are scared of them. The ACLU is anti-American and fights anything that is a danger to their socialist agenda. Gun owners are a serious danger to their desire to change America into a communist state.

Most believe that the average American citizen is simply too stupid to be allowed to own firearm. Therefore, they are merely savings us from ourselves. If it wasn't for our single digit IQ, we'd recognize that fact and join with them in removing all guns from America.

[Andrew Rothman]

The ACLU is anti-American and fights anything that is a danger to their socialist agenda. Gun owners are a serious danger to their desired police state.

All you do is expose your own ignorance. I tend to think that free speech, free press, free association, protection against illegal search and seizure, and voting rights are pretty American concepts.

Go tell me where the ACLU fights AGAINST something "American".

Go on. They have a web site. Go look it up.

Then tell me where they fight AGAINST the 2nd. I know, they don't support it, but it's not like they've thrown in with the Brady Bunch.

Liberals aren't always wrong, and conservatives sure as heck aren't always right.

It's a big world. Come off the range once in a while and go look at it.

[Hkmp5sd]

Wow, been a while since I've been called ignorant.

Ever heard of Terri Schiavo? She is a comatose woman in Florida. Immediately after winning a lawsuit, her husband popped up and stated that she had told him she didn't want to be kept alive in such a condition. The only thing they are doing to keep her alive is using a feeding tube. Her parents are fighting to at least allow her to undergo therapy to see if there is any improvement before they starve her to death.

The ACLU has joined the fight to kill her. So much for protecting her rights.

Hmmm....nativity scenes on public property. So much for freedom of speech and religion.

The ACLU doesn't fight to protect rights. They fight to protect the absurd.

[Andrew Rothman]

Ever heard of Terri Schiavo? She is a comatose woman in Florida. Immediately after winning a lawsuit, her husband popped up and stated that she had told him she didn't want to be kept alive in such a condition.

The only thing they are doing to keep her alive is using a feeding tube. Her parents are fighting to at least allow her to undergo therapy to see if there is any improvement before they starve her to death.

The ACLU has joined the fight to kill her. So much for protecting her rights.
Yeah, and as next of kin, that's his call. The woman has been a vegetable for what, twelve years, with no sign of mentation?

The ACLU is fighting to get the courts and the parents out of the loop and let the husband exercise his right as next of kin to make medical decisions. Decisions, by the way, backed by doctors, who would only profit from leaving her plugged in.

Hmmm....nativity scenes on public property. So much for freedom of speech and religion.

Freedom of speech and religion are INDIVIDUAL rights, just like the right to keep and bear arms. The whole point is that the STATE should not be in the religion business -- and that means no state churches, state mosques, state religions, state Ten Commandment monuments, state pagan statues, or state nativity scenes.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer

[rock jock]

Gun owners who only care about the second and want to outlaw homosexuality are just as bad as liberals (including our president) who want to outlaw guns.
Bad analogy. Guns are protected by the 2A. Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.

[Hkmp5sd]

The ACLU is fighting to get the courts and the parents out of the loop and let the husband exercise his right as next of kin to make medical decisions. Decisions, by the way, backed by doctors, who would only profit from leaving her plugged in.

People making decisions about their kin. Keep that thought in mind.

The ACLU vs. Parental Choice
By Matthew Berry

Last year, only seven percent of fourth graders at Spencer Bibbs Elementary School in Pensacola were able to score above the national average on a standardized reading comprehension test. Fully two-thirds of these students ranked in the lowest 25 percent nationally, while, amazingly, not one Bibbs fourth grader was able to place among the top 25 percent. Plainly, something is terribly wrong at Bibbs.

For the predominantly African-American parents of modest means whose children are assigned to Bibbs, our nation's promise of equal educational opportunities at times must appear to be little more than a cruel hoax. These parents see their children fall farther and farther behind, trapped in a school that is clearly failing to teach them even the basics.

Fortunately, however, the State of Florida is now offering Bibbs parents hope. Because of Governor Bush's recently enacted A+ Plan for Education, students assigned to Bibbs and other "F"-rated schools will be eligible for an opportunity scholarship, which they may use to escape from a failing school and attend a better public school or a private school. This year, students at Bibbs and one other low-performing Pensacola elementary school will be eligible for the program. Next fall, it is estimated that the list of failing schools will number between 150 and 300.

But just as many underprivileged children finally appear to have a good education within their grasp, the ACLU, teachers' unions, and the NAACP are poised to snatch it away from them. These organizations have announced that they will sue in a misguided attempt to block the opportunity scholarship program from taking effect. They claim that the program is unconstitutional because scholarships may be used at religious schools and are at odds with the state's constitutional duty to maintain a high-quality system of public education.
http://www.ij.org/media/school_choice/florida/oped_berry_6_18_99.shtml

[Nightfall]

Bad analogy. Guns are protected by the 2A. Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.
So is it your contention that anything not specifically mentioned in the BoR is free for government interference?

[Don Galt]

Bad analogy. Guns are protected by the 2A. Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.


Depending on which form of criminalization of homosexuality you want to support, it violates either the first, fourth, or ninth ammendments, and almost all of them violate the equal protection clause.

By the way, rock, you should remember that the constitution does not grant rigths, it merely recognizes them. Homosexuality is a god given right, and is explicitly protected by the 9th ammendment.

A gun rights supporter who opposes gay marriage is a hypocrite. You cannot support self ownership and oppose self ownership. (And without self ownership, you have no right to defend yourself, as you have no self to defend... yourself belongs to the state, or whomever.)

Both gun rights and homosexual rights are expressions of the same god given right.

[twoblink]

hmm..
Which is better for America?

The Boy Scouts or NAMBLA? That's a tough one..

basically, it's easy, where do you stand on an issue? Look where the ACLU stands, and stand on the other side, you will be ok..

Nativity Scene? THAT is the biggest threat to America? Not gangs, drugs, out-of-wedlock parenting, kids having kids, social security, lack of homeland security, illegal immigrants, the education system, the corrupt government, the decrease in freedom?

[Augustwest]

Bad analogy. Guns are protected by the 2A. Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.

As has been pointed out, several amendments (IX was the first one that came to my mind) cover this.

There's plenty that goes on in this country that doesn't jibe well with my personal sense of morality. But I'm not about to try to get laws passed to prohibit people from living as they see fit, as long as they're not depriving others of the same.

As far as Nativity scenes go, seems to me they're a more a cultural than a religous symbol. Best that they're kept on private property, but I'm not sure it's an issue worth tying up the courts over.

And if the ACLU would really start defending the whole BoR, they'd have my support - financial and otherwise. But they don't, so my meager help goes elsewhere.

[dustind]

twoblink: Which group is better is irrelevant, it depends on what they do. Everyone has rights, and no on is allowed to violate other's rights.

It is not the ACLU's mission to fight crime or corruption, it is to fight for civil rights. The government can not endorse religion, the fact that there are bigger problems is irrelevant also. There are murderers out there yet I can not speed on the open road.

Rock Jock: Are you saying people do not have the right to get married? I always assumed that it was my right to live with, be with, and marry whomever I chose. Or is it that some people have rights that others don't? that situation is recognized by the BOR. If you want to ban marriages ban them all or do not ban any. Saying only one group can and the other can not is unconstitutional on its face.

[revlar]

The gay lobby's demands for the legalization of gay marriage is not about self-ownership - it's about their concerted attempt to intimidate state governments, the federal government, and the entire spectrum of religious organizations into accepting and patently validating something (namely the institution of "marriage") that has always been solely and solemnly instituted between a man and a woman - not two individuals of the same gender.
If two people want to engage in homosexual activity - fine. Just don't try to coerce me into participation (which I have been subjected to, so don't try to label me a homophobe), and don't try to force or seduce children into participating. If two homosexuals want to enter into some form of "civil union" that grants them rights concerning insurance, inheritance, etc., - fine. Just don't "demand" that either the state or the church officially designate such a union as a bona fide "marriage".
When such attempts are made to coerce the government - and especially the church - into officially validating homosexual civil union through the application of the word "marriage" - it ain't gonna go down without a long and bitter (read "endless") fight. Call it quibbling over semantics if you want to - but NO one is going to require me to perform a "marriage" between two people of the same gender (or for that matter a "civil union" either). I have been granted a sacred responsibility as an officiant at a marriage ceremony - a responsibility firmly grounded in biblical teachings and officially recognized by the state. Don't even begin to tell me what "marriage" is. That's not up to ANY lobby - I don't care how powerful it may be.
You may call a homosexual civil union a marriage if you wish to - call it whatever you want to call it. But no government, lobby or individual will EVER force me to recognize the "civil union" of two people of the same gender as a "marriage". At best that's an attempt to trivialize my religious convictions - and at worst a vile and insidious attempt to lay claim - to "OWN" - my mind, my conscience and my faith.

[cordex]

Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.
In the same paragraph which protects heterosexuality.
Just underneath the section stating that protects your right to breathe and before the enumeration of your right to receive advanced surgical treatment for an otherwise fatal illness or buy ammunition for the arms which you are allowed to keep and/or bear.

[morganm01]

The government can not endorse religion,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Does "endorsing" mean making a law establishing religion by congress? Is a nativity scene on public property put there by workers in a courthouse an act of congress establishing a religion?

[Daniel T]

If two homosexuals want to enter into some form of "civil union" that grants them rights concerning insurance, inheritance, etc., - fine. Just don't "demand" that either the state or the church officially designate such a union as a bona fide "marriage".

You know, most homosexuals would be happy with just having civil unions that allowed them the same rights and benefits as a hetero married couple. However, except in a few states, they are forbidden that too.

[cordex]

If two homosexuals want to enter into some form of "civil union" that grants them rights concerning insurance, inheritance, etc., - fine. Just don't "demand" that either the state or the church officially designate such a union as a bona fide "marriage".
Sure.
I don't feel that the gov't should officially designate any civil union as a "marriage". Marriage is an agreement between two people and perhaps one or more of their gods. Not with the government.

[dustind]

revlar: Unless you get tax money, no one should be able to force you to do that, your right.

The problem is that our government grants privileges(marriage) to some people and not others, blatantly unconstitutional. If the state got out of the marriage business or stopped granting privileges that would be one thing. If married people did not get special tax status, and exemption from testifying in court, and all the other legal stuff it would be different.

[Andrew Rothman]

Is a nativity scene on public property put there by workers in a courthouse an act of congress establishing a religion?

Yup.

In the same way that a state, county or city can't infringe on your 2nd-Amendment rights, they cannot infringe on your 1st-Amendment rights.

Do I need to draw a picture?

[DRC]

"Freedom of speech and religion are INDIVIDUAL rights, just like the right to keep and bear arms. The whole point is that the STATE should not be in the religion business -- and that means no state churches, state mosques, state religions, state Ten Commandment monuments, state pagan statues, or state nativity scenes."

States are trying to step in and give added protections to institutions such as mosques to "allow more religious diversity." Intrestingly enough this country was founded on the belief that there should be no oppresion of religion or religious belief and that one should have religious freedom. I realize that you're calling this an "INDIVIDUAL" right but something you missed is that this nation is made up of individuals and the majority of individuals want many of these things be it state, national or individual. The problem is that the minority interprets these things as being infringements on their rights and never once considers what they are doing, by denying, to be the exact same thing they espouse to be wrong.

Don Galt,

"Both gun rights and homosexual rights are expressions of the same god given right."

I hate to say this but by virtue of the scriptures homosexuality is not a God given right. Scripturally speaking God considers it an abomination. Just thought I'd throw that in but yes, all people have rights and protections under the law.

"It is not the ACLU's mission to fight crime or corruption, it is to fight for civil rights."

Like so many other organizations the ACLU tends to fight primarily for those things that gain them the most favor and or airtime. They have an agenda and its not just for civil liberties I'm afraid.

I have to agree with the poster that said that NAMBLA should not even be allowed to exist. Their sole purpose for being is an abomination. What they do, what they espouse and what they stand for is wrong. I honestly believe that if a person is a known member of NAMBLA they should be arrsted or worse on sight. Are they protected under the law? Well if the law and others want to protect pediphiles then I guess they are but that does not change WHAT they are. And what they are is criminal, immoral and sick. Times may change but standards of decency and morality must remain. The selective prosecution of law, in my mind, is perfectly justifiable because some things are just wrong and should not be protected under the law.

Cordex,

"I don't feel that the gov't should officially designate any civil union as a "marriage". Marriage is an agreement between two people and perhaps one or more of their gods. Not with the government."

Gay marriage? There is no such thing in the institution of marriage so why homosexuals want it recognized has nothing to do with the institution of marriage or love. It has to do with priviledges and "special rights" not rights in general. What homosexuals want to do is have the government mandate that these same sex marriages are between them and the government giving them "extra protections" under the law and have their marriages forcibly recognized as "legal" by all other institutions, plain and simply.

Being PC is BS. If it's wrong it's wrong. Who decides right and wrong? For me and mine? I do. For the nation? The majority. Problem is that the minority is given the voice anymore and gets to decide.

Take care,

DRC

[Marko Kloos]

Is a nativity scene on public property put there by workers in a courthouse an act of congress establishing a religion?

First of all, Congress is prohibited from respecting an establishment of religion, which is not the same as establishing a religion. The former is far more restrictive than the latter.

Second, the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to all States and municipalities, not just Congress. In other words, if Congress may not violate the Bill of Rights, neither may the States.

It could be argued that a nativity scene is primarily cultural, but it cannot be argued that a nativity scene has nothing to do with religion. The fact remains that a nativity scene on public property is tantamount to an official endorsement of that particular religious tradition. It's fine if the town's Muslims, jews, and pagans also get to erect a display on that same public property, but it becomes unconstitutional if that nativity scene is both a.) erected by public employees, and/or b.) the only thing permitted on that patch of public property.

It doesn't matter if the town is 99.9% Christian, either. The Bill of Rights is majority-proof, and cannot be overridden by majority decree. The solution is to either keep the nativity scene on private property, or give equal access to the public grounds by letting all other religious groups within the town erect their own holiday display.

[rock jock]

By the way, rock, you should remember that the constitution does not grant rigths, it merely recognizes them.
I never said it did. And, it does NOT just recognize certain rights, it protects them from the govt.

Homosexuality is a god given right
Who says - you? That is positiely ludicrous.

and is explicitly protected by the 9th ammendment.
Explicitly? The 9A says that homosexuality is protected as a right? Is that your contention? Because if it is, you need to go back to civics class.

[Matt Wallis]

I rarely post here. Mostly just lurk and read. But I had to respond to this... Saying that "I like puppies" doesnt need protecting. Saying "I hate ..... because he is.........." is what the first amendment was meant to protect.

Actually, the founding fathers were mostly dealing with political speech, and especially criticism of the government, when they wrote the 1st. That is what it was meant to protect, not your ability to be as foul mouthed as you want to be.

Regards,
Matt

[MrAcheson]

Both gun rights and homosexual rights are expressions of the same god given right.

DRC is correct. Historically, every major religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hindu all do, Buddhism probably does as well) in the world has considered homosexuality to be a sin. God gave us the ability to choose to practice homosexuality, but not the right to do so. Theologically, I don't think anyone has the right to do what is immoral without consequence. However we are talking politically not theologically and what is moral is always up for debate...

A further religious note: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... This is then extended to the states throught the 14th amendment. So why is it kids can't pray or conduct their own student-led bible studies in school in many districts? Why is it that atheists have court backing to remove all practices of religion from public life? Considering that religious belief is the norm, not athiesm, shouldn't a fair compromise be reached on those grounds regarding the use of public lands? Not so says the ACLU. Evidentally "free exercise thereof" does not mean what I think it means...

The ACLU stands up for civil rights, but it is a very liberal definition of civil rights i.e. collective 2nd amendment and state-sponsored athiesm. I do not find either of these to be accurate representations of the true intentions of the bill of rights.

[MrAcheson]

Actually, the founding fathers were mostly dealing with political speech, and especially criticism of the government, when they wrote the 1st. That is what it was meant to protect, not your ability to be as foul mouthed as you want to be.

Its arguable that the 1st was also meant to protect the speech and knowledge which would be required to overthrown the government should it become tyrannical. This is not political debate.

[Don Galt]

Someone, after advocating that his definition of marriage be shoved down our throats said:
"Don't even begin to tell me what "marriage" is. That's not up to ANY lobby - I don't care how powerful it may be."

Fact of the matter is, you "traditional" view of marriage is historiacally innacurate. The first religious marriage ceremonies were performed by the catholic church to recognize the "special spiritual bond" between priests and, er, uh, younger *male* priests.

Eventually this was extended to recognize marriages within the lay community.

It was actually much later that the bible was re-written in order to support a campaign to persecute homosexuals and others, in order to drum up support for the church.

[Don Galt]

"I hate to say this but by virtue of the scriptures homosexuality is not a God given right. Scripturally speaking God considers it an abomination. "

False.

First off, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condemned. (And lets not start quoting scripture... I've been down that path, and all of the relevant scripture is either misquoted-- sometimes blatently falsely-- or was re-written.)

Further, the idea that "god given" means only those rights given by your hate filled, insecure god, is an idea that backs establishment of religion.

"God given" rights are universal, objective rights, that all people-- even people who are not christians-- have.

"Who decides right and wrong... the majority".

That's a very unamerican thing for you to say. In fact, it goes against the constitution, which recognizes inalianable rights.

And as for NAMBLA, I suggest that you people stop bringing them up-- or I will tell you what I really think. IF you cannot dicuss homosexualty without bringing up that organization, you simply aren't rational.

Objective morality exists, unfortunately, the christian church often teaches immorality-- socialism -- "You must serve the community"-- as well as hatred and bigotry --"all those others are going to burn in hell, go spread the word (by killing them)".

You have the right to believe whatever you like. You do not have the right to try and force others to follow your religions teachings.

EVEN if you are the majority.

[Don Galt]

Rock Jock-

IF you care to make an argument, make it. But your attempts to attack me personally are not going to get us anywhere. And just saying "your wrong" doesn't count as an argument.

[Balog]

Don Galt: from whence are you deriving that load of ridiculous drivel?

Edit to show which comment I was referring to Fact of the matter is, you "traditional" view of marriage is historiacally innacurate. The first religious marriage ceremonies were performed by the catholic church to recognize the "special spiritual bond" between priests and, er, uh, younger *male* priests.

Eventually this was extended to recognize marriages within the lay community.

It was actually much later that the bible was re-written in order to support a campaign to persecute homosexuals and others, in order to drum up support for the church.

[Don Galt]

"Historically, every major religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hindu all do, Buddhism probably does as well) in the world has considered homosexuality to be a sin."

False. You may consider it so, but to claim that all religious people do is demonstrably false. The episcopalians just elected an openly gay bishop.

I find it interesting that so quickly this thread has gone from recognizing the constitution to attempting to claim that christianity condemns homosexuality, and thus it is not a god given right under the constitution.

I know christians are taught to think that the constitution only supports the way they think people should live, but that is not what it says.

If "God given" means only "Christian god" (oh, and which denomination?) then the first ammendment wouldn't be explicitly preventing the government from doing what you advocate-- which is establishment of religion.

And at the end of the day, when you fight to undermine human rights--- in this case, the right of self ownership-- you fight to undermine the right to self defense.

I really don't care what you think the bible says. The bible is a work of fiction, re-written to suit the political goals of the church over the years, and is wholely irrelevant to the government of this country.

The constitution recognizes the right to self defense, free speech, the integrity of the person and their affects (4th ammendment) and in the 9th ammendment, all other rights.

Whether you like homosexuality or not, whether you're the majority or not, the constitution has spoken on this issue and you don't get to decide how other people live.

And when you continue to try to, your claims that you have a right to gun ownership ring hollow-- you have taken the liberal side that the "community" or the "majority" get to decide what human rights people have.

And that is to confuse priviledges with rights.

Now, if you were to say that you don't like homosexuality, and you think the state should get out of the marriage blessing business, we'd have no quarral.

It is the idea that the state gets to decide what relationships people can have together, let alone to do so on religious grounds-- that is offensive to the constitution.

Just as every senator and congressman who voted for the 1994 AWB is guilty of a crime (not sure what the crime is, but they at least violated their oath to uphold the constitution) those who voted for the 1996 "Defense of Marriage" act are equally guilty.

They are all criminals in the eyes of the constitution. And that's a hell of a thing!

[Marko Kloos]

I'll never understand how people can devote so much energy and time concerning themselves with the sex lives of their consenting adult neighbors.

As for the "My God hates homosexuality" bit...different gods hate different things. Your steak dinner is an abomination to a Hindu. Your game time Budweiser is an abomination to a Muslim. The only way we can all live in peace together is by letting our respective deities deal with those we perceive as sinners. Unfortunately, whenever one religious group gets their hands on the powers of government, they invariably think they need to give their deity a helping hand.

Let's put this one to rest.