Divide and conquer

[Cosmoline]

Quote:
I guess states not allowing folks to vote or banning the legal sanctions of marriage based on race was quite OK.

If by "OK" you mean "constitutional" then yes it was "OK".

Not after the 14th was enacted it wasn't.

I believe that we also need a federal amendment to the US Constitution. How can Virginians define our society and culture if other States can force homosexual marriage upon us?

Your concern might justify a modification of the FF&C clause, but it would never justify preempting marriage and making it a federal issue by actively preventing any state from recognizing same sex marriages.

The whole thing is a STRAW MAN. Wake up.

The States did not delegate juridiction over our basic rights to the US.

They did when they ratified the 14th. Or are you one of the people who deny that the 14th was ever really ratified and think we should go up to black men and say "Come with me! You are my slave now."

 

[30Cal]

At least the funeral protesters will be happy this November.

Ty

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

They did when they ratified the 14th. Or are you one of the people who deny that the 14th was ever really ratified and think we should go up to black men and say "Come with me! You are my slave now."

The Fourteenth Amendment didn't free the slaves, first of all. As for the legitimacy of its ratification, the North occupied the South with their military, maintained martial law, and generally made life miserable for them. Then they gave them the ultimatum of voting for ratification or else the martial law will continue forever. Some Southern State legislators were literally marched into the voting chambers at gun point to vote for ratification. If that seems like a fair political process to you, then I suppose the Fourteenth Amendment was legitimately ratified. Otherwise, no.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted byMrTuffPaws:

Can we all just have civil unions? I mean everyone. Then if you want a marriage, head on down the your local favorite church, pass what ever tests they have for you, and get married.

The GOVERNMENT, EITHER STATE OR FEDERALS, should have nothing to do with the religious concept of marriage. You want to give tax breaks to those with kids, fine, give them a civil union and let the churches worry about who is going to hell.

This is the exact feeling I could not express. Its not the governments church to recognize any religious implications of marriage. The 1st Amendment prevents that. We should just give people the right to form a civil union to be recognized by the state. A marriage would be recognized in the eyes of the chruch and would have nothing to do with the government and taxes.

 

[Cosmoline]

My point was if the 14th wasn't properly ratified--neither was the 13th.

At some point you have to join the real world and realize that any problems with those ratifications during Reconstruction are long since moot. It's like objecting to the Constitution because it was the product of an illegal revolution.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It's like objecting to the Constitution because it was the product of an illegal revolution.

Bad analogy. The first war for independence (1776) was fought to implement government by the consent of the government. The second war for independence (1861) was fought to preserve government by the consent of the governed. The forces of government by consent won the first war, but lost the second. The victors of the second war then proceeded to impose a government on a conquered people that they did not consent to. These are two quite distinct events, and are in no way analogous to one another.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

The Bush administration must believe without a doubt the American public is stupid.

They're pretty darn dumb, that's for sure. If they're so stupid that they are distracted from the serious mess that the Administration has made of this country by a non-issue like this, then we truly do have the government we deserve.

At least the funeral protesters will be happy this November.

We could call this the Fred Phelps Amendment.

 

[Helmetcase]

Why are we discussing this again? It's an obvious political ploy or pandering effort that even the religious right isn't buying into. They might be hateful anti-freedom bigots , but they know when they're being toyed with and prostituted.

If your marriage is so weak that it's damaged or diminished because a couple of women want to live together, you have MUCH larger problems than homosexuality. I'd almost respect people like weedwacker if they weren't obviously deluding themselves; they come up with these grandiose explanations for their positions (the "nature" argument is so much succulent bull****, if it were up to "nature" marriage wouldn't exist AT ALL--men would be on the prowl for as much bootie as we can get, that's how the species stays alive in "nature", and there are plenty of historical examples of civilizations that tolerated homosexuality and didn't revere marriage the way JudeoChristians do), but pretty clearly they're trying to smokescreen the fact that they, as gun owners, want others to respect their privacy and their gun rights, but don't care to respect the privacy and individual liberty of others.

We'll have a much easier time getting people to respect our gun rights if we don't treat the privacy and civil liberties of others so callously.

This is the kind of divisive bull**** you can expect when the commander in chief is seeing approval ratings in the low 30s, upper 20s, etc. Even the religious right folks aren't buying it. Dunno why any of you would be dumb enough to. As gun rights activists we need to be smarter than that, be mindful of how we present ourselves, be more focused on OUR issue, and not be distracted by attempts to pander to the biblethumping crowd (especially since even they aren't big fans of this initiative).

 

[CAnnoneer]

Helmetcase, nice post. I mostly agree. But,

the "nature" argument is so much succulent bull****, if it were up to "nature" marriage wouldn't exist AT ALL--men would be on the prowl for as much bootie as we can get, that's how the species stays alive in "nature",

is technically incorrect.

Desmond Morris in "The Naked Ape" discusses this point in great detail. To summarize the argument, there are two extremes in reproductive strategy:

a) maximize numbers, minimize care
b) minimize numbers, maximize care

The more complex and advanced the organism, the more the species gravitates towards the latter strategy. The reasons are longer pregnancy, longer maturation cycle, and greater dependence of the offspring on the parents. In human society, this means some form of stable, long-lasting family unit, but any such would do. That is why wealthy polygamous Mormons are just as successful in child-rearing as the typical monogamous heterosexual couple. From that perspective, it is difficult to see why a lesbian or gay couple would be less successful, except for maybe one or two psychological complications that might arise in upbringing.

I'd say that the greatest danger to "family values" if any is socialism and the idea that the government should pay people to have children, rather than a puny percentage of homosexual couples among the general population.

The fundamental issue is one of individual freedoms, which Helmetcase explained pretty well and related to our own struggles as gunowners.

In any case, the whole point of the thread is not about the pros and cons of gay marriage but how the RINOs in power are using the issue to divert attention from their abysmal performance on far more critical issues, such as Iraq, national security, and illegal invasion.

 

[longeyes]

I'd say that the greatest danger to "family values" if any is socialism and the idea that the government should pay people to have children, rather than a puny percentage of homosexual couples among the general population.

And you can tie that in with the desire to open our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants, citing "family values" as the ironic excuse for mass-scale socialism.

 

[hugh damright]

the whole point of the thread is not about the pros and cons of gay marriage but how the RINOs in power are using the issue to divert attention

I think there is also a point to be made about whether or not it is an important and valid issue. I think it is. I don't think it is something made up to get attention, I believe we need an amendment.

 

[longeyes]

Memo to The President: Life is not about the governmental legalization of orifices, but while we're on the subject be careful of which one you are speaking through.

 

[GTSteve03]

Don't worry, this will work out just fine for the Repubs.

Between the masses more concerned with the season premiere of "American Idol" and the other idiots too afraid of "throwing their vote away" or deciding to "vote the lesser evil," the only ones who'll get out and vote are the zealots who have been spurned into action against the "evil homos." That and a handy non-auditable electronic voting system courtesy of Diebold, means that there'll be no big shakeups in November.