What's your take on gay's being given marriage licenses?

right. during prohibition you dont buy beers at the local speakeasy, because you respect the rule of law. we both know that isnt true. say goodbye to your intellectual honesty.


the rule of law doesnt matter, its the law itself. if they made a law that said i am not allowed to sing in the shower, i would violate it. it would have zero consequences, because you dont always have to blindly obey the government.

if these people want to break the law and get married or whatever, it doesnt matter, because the law is useless anyways. it doesnt mean nobody respects laws anymore and we will descend into chaos.

i agree with calcotiger when he says:

exactly. marrying people is the responsibility of religion, not the government. it should be clear the the government should not classify anyone as married.

i agree with mikethetiger69 also.

 

Once again, you agree with me while saying you don't...

The singing in the shower argument is EXACTLY my point...

In this society, our RULE OF LAW allows you to violate that law-if hypothetically-it existed.

If you were to be found in violation of that law, the RULE OF LAW would punish you by whatever means were provided for. Whether you like it or not, or obeyed the law or not, the punishment for your behavior-which DIVERGED from the rule of law-is BINDING and recognized, based on OUR RULE OF LAW.

If we're using your hypothetical, it's a slam dunk...I'll take it a step farther...

If they mic'd your shower, and caught you in the act, dragged you into court (with only your shower cap and towel and shower shoes, no less!), played the tape, convicted you, and then penalized you with the standard punishment (which let's HYPOTHETICALLY say is jailtime), then you'd go to jail...

This would eliminate your ability to do as you please. Your personal sovreignty, and your decisions to do "what you want, whe you want" and to "obey what laws you choose to", will no longer be given to you. Incarceration cages you up, and restricts your ability to do as you please. THE RULE OF LAW HAS EXERCISED ITS CONTROL OVER YOU IN THIS WAY.

Whether you choose to obey or disobey SOME laws, my point still stands, that, depending upon the degree with which your choices diverges towards the boundaries that the rule of law provides for free will, the closer you will converge with the RULE OF LAW punishing you for your divergence and convergence, so to speak.

You do as you like, and ignore laws as you like, but like anyone else, you know that if you ignore them for long enough, and get careless enough paying more attention to your own personal compass, the closer you will come to the RULE OF LAW correcting you and exercising its control over you in a much more noticeable manner....

 

Consider it as a shock collar...You're a dog...You don't know that it's there, and in your own mortal arrogance, you refuse to acknowledge it, but it's there...You just don't quite seem capable enough to comprehend that it exists...

;-)

 

and i bet these gays who are illegally married are terrified of the punishment that is inevitable. they shouldnt do such terrible things to taunt the big bad laws!

 

No...They should respect the rule of law...They're not mindless velociraptors from Jurassic Park testing the electric cables fencing them into the habitats, looking in vain for "weak spots" and hoping some calamitous "perfect storm" comes along that allows them to break out and terrorize their habitat, grind the judicial system to a halt with lawsuits over spousal benefits, tax issues, legal inheritance problems, moral issues, educational problems, etc...

They're thinking, breathing, human beings, with a sense for what is legal and what is not. They are breaching the rule of law, and their actions will be punished by having their activities that they are attempting to fraudulently claim are legal and binding nullified.

No matter whether you think that punishment is "big and bad" the law provides for a punishment, again, according to severity of the law and the manner of which it was done.

It has taken you awhile to accept that no matter whether you agree, think it shouldn't have action taken on it, or otherwise, the RULE OF LAW will provide for those that attempt to usurp it, and it will quickly "shock" them back into the area where they have previously lived untouched, unharassed, and even accepted on a growing and more widescale basis.

 

should blacks have patiently waited in their spot at the back of the bus? when will we punish the lawbreakers who broke the jim crow laws? are we to blindly follow every law politicians sign into being?

if you are mindless, then continue to blindly obey.

civil disobedience is a perfectly acceptable way to protest.

the government doesnt define what a baptism is, why should they define marriage?

 

My stance on gay marriage, and homosexuality, completely:

First, my personal view; as a firm Christian who believes in the Bible, I believe, and must believe, that homosexuality is a sinful, abnormal perversion. If that offends anyone, sorry, but those are my personal beliefs, and the beliefs of most Christian denominations, so you don't have to subscribe to them.

However, in the United States of America, a nation which is founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic but is prohibited by the Constitution from endorsing any one religious viewpoint, we don't hunt homosexuals down and burn them at the stake. They are U.S. citizens, fully entitled to their God-given Constitutional rights. As long as they aren't hurting anybody or putting their "alternative lifestyle" in everybody's face, I really have no problem with them. But tolerance and acceptance are two completely different things. Tolerance is an American ideal, the firm belief that this country is a safe haven for the persecuted of the world, and to that end, homosexuals should have all the rights of regular citizens, the right to free speech, the right to believe in whatever religion they choose, the right to own property, the right to vote, and the right to equal treatment under law. Also, the right to serve in the military and defend America, without having to hide the fact that they are homosexuals. All this, they have a right to, a right that no one can take away from them.

However, tolerance and acceptance are two completely different things. I tolerate homosexuals, because they are human beings who deserve to be treated fairly and equally with compassion and dignity and I practice the Golden Rule of doing unto others as I would want to be done to me. But I cannot and will not ever accept homosexuality as perfectly normal, okay, and the equal of heterosexuality, because it's just not. Heterosexuality has to be accepted by both religious people and pure believers in science and nature as either God's way or evolution's way for humanity to survive. If homosexuality were ever accepted as such by society as a whole, it could have disastrous implications for our society and the human race. That is why I believe it is very important that homosexuality continue to be taboo in the larger culture and that it be denied any legal sanction whatsoever by government. It is in American society's best interest, for the preservation of basic civic morality, cultural norms and the nuclear family, that homosexuality be shunned and heterosexuality be encouraged at every oppurtunity as the superior and better way.

But gays can't help it, they are just that way, you might say. I do not believe homosexuality is genetic. No evidence of a gay gene has ever been found. No evidence of heredity in homosexuality has ever been found. Since, up until recently, it was impossible for homosexuals to reproduce without forcing themselves to engage in heterosexual procreation, more studies will have to be done. But I firmly believe nothing will be found. Rather, I think homosexuality is in the same league with other abnormal sexual behaviors and fetishes, such as pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. etc. These folks are somehow "wired" to be more susceptible to that sexual desire. It could be a chemical imbalance, or purely psychological. I'm not sure what makes them different. But I do know this; it's not impossible to change. If it were so, groups like Exodus International wouldn't be doing very well. But they are. This world is full of homosexuals, pedophiles, and other different people who are very much in control of their sexual urges and are living happily in a normal, heterosexual marriage. So I cannot believe that gays are "just made that way" and that "there is nothing that can be done." You can either control your sexual urges or your sexual urges will control you. It is a choice.

To the end of my idea, which is denying homosexuality any legal sanction whatsoever, let's talk about gay marriage. First of all, marriage is a privelige, not a right. It is a status conferred upon citizens by the state and the church to define family, to confer legal standing and legitimacy to those two people and the children and family they produce, to further the society by giving two people an acceptable outlet for producing children, and to offer mutual protection and companionship to the two parties giving them stability and society stability as well. It may also be about love and trust, but the state is not concerned with matters of the heart. We're speaking strictly in terms of what it means legally and culturally. And since the dawn of time, in nearly all societies Eastern, Western, or African, marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Even in most societies that allowed polygamy, the husband had to have a separate marriage contract and wedding for each wife. If a man had five wives, he had five marriages. That's a fact. This will be the first time in history that the fundamental nature of marriage has been changed. And if this goes through, I can promise you that it won't be the last. Marriage will become as elastic as a rubber band, and soon, entire groups of swingers will want the legal benefits and protections conferred by marriage. I know some people dismiss "slippery slope" arguments, but they often turn out to be quite valid. This also opens the door for numerous mistaken identity and fraudulent marriages. Two buddies of mine (both straight men) have been roommates for six years. If gay marriage goes through, will they all of a sudden be declared a "common law marriage" by the state (Louisiana law says a man and a woman living together three years automatically become a common law marriage)? Will two men who are straight get married just to get spousal benefits? The legal Pandora's Box we will open with this will have endless repercussions and will redefine marriage, family, and society as we know it. Are we really ready for that? Will we ever be?

Worst of all, this puts homosexuality on equal footing with heterosexuality in the eyes of the law. It is basically a statement by the government that issues the marriage license that it is "okay to be gay." It is not about homosexuals being equal to heterosexuals. They already are. It's about equating homosexuality with heterosexuality, something any biology book will clearly tell you is untrue, not to mention the Holy Bible and most books on sexual behavior and psychology published before 1980. Such a statement will throw American society into chaos. It will finish off the stable, Mom-and-Dad nuclear family, the basic building block of society, and cause confusion and collapse like we have never seen before. Marriage will soon become meaningless (although that process started long ago with our skyrocketing divorce rates) and the legal parameters around the institution will become so murky that gov't. might just stop fooling with it alltogether, which would be quite disastrous in it's own right. It is in the best interest of our society, to even make sure there is an American nation and people 150 years from now, to emphatically state again and again that heterosexuality is morally and functionally superior to homosexuality and to deny homosexuality any legal sanction or recognition. That's why I'm not even cool with civil unions. Anything that says homosexuality is okay is bad. I don't advocate outlawing it. Gov't. should not legislate morality. I don't advocate persecuting gays. They are human beings and Americans who have a right to live in peace. But they do not have a right to marry, and they should not be allowed to marry, because it would threaten society and the institution of marriage as a whole. And anyone who doesn't see that is either completely clueless or complicit in the ongoing effort by radical change-agents in our society to destroy traditional morality and family in this world.

As for how to combat gay marriage, I am a firm believer in states rights and marriage has been handled by the states since the beginning of our country. I want California and Massachusetts to solve this problem on their own with constitutional amendments and laws and whatever else is necessary. I favor a federal constitutional amendment only as a last resort, when all other attempts to block gay marriage have failed, and even then only if the parameters of such an amendment are strictly confined to only outlawing gay marriage, with every other provision on regulation of marriage and granting of marriage licenses left to the states.

My worst fear is if Massachusetts and California lawmakers are unable to stop gay marriage, a gay couple moves to a state with a DOMA law to challenge it, and a federal court sees fit to apply the "full-faith-and-credit-clause" to force gay marriage down the throats of states that don't want it. That's when the crap will hit the fan, and it's a perfectly plausible scenario.

It will be interesting to watch this debate.

 

Turns out maybe the FFCC can't be used to force gay marriage on the rest of the country.

Andy Sullivan, an ardent supporter of gay marriage, says on his website:

"There is, alas, one simple factual problem in Charles Krauthammer's thoughtful piece today. It is the following assertion:

"Because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution (which makes every state accept "the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State"), gay marriage can be imposed on the entire country by a bare majority of the state supreme court of but one state. This in a country where about 60 percent of the citizenry opposes gay marriage."

This is inaccurate. Historically, marriage has never been one of the "public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transportable from state to state. If that had been the case, we would never have had a struggle over inter-racial marriage. As soon as one northern state legalized it, it would have been legal in every Southern state. (Civil divorce, ironically, is such an institution. It is the result of a judicial proceeding. Civil marriage, in contrast, is a license.) It has long been established law that the states have a public policy exception to recognizing marriages from other states; and Massachusetts' marriage licenses, to cite the current controversy, are even issued on the condition that they are void elsewhere if unapproved in other states. So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken. Some argue that activist courts these days will over-rule these precedents. But with 38 states explicitly saying they won't recognize such marriages; with the Defense of Marriage Act backing that up; the likelihood is minimal. And once you remove that premise, Charles' argument about who is the aggressor here is undermined (although I am glad that he wants to defend the Constitution from unnecessary meddling). In my view, the religious right amendment is both extreme - in that it bans any state from granting civil marriage rights to gays - and premature - in that the need for it on purely federalist grounds hasn't been in any way proven. Here's my offer, then, to my friend, Charles. If all legal precedent fails, if DOMA is struck down, if one single civil marriage in Massachusetts is deemed valid in another state, without that other state's consent, I will support a federal constitutional amendment that would solely say that no state is required to recognize a civil marriage from another state. By that time, we might even have had a chance to evaluate how equal marriage rights play out in a single state or two. How's that for a compromise?"

 

I think that most Americans would agree with what you say. The problem is that these perverts are no longer content to have their perverse lifestyle merely tolerated. The more vocal element of the homo crowd wants to shove it in our faces. If a couple of faggots want to enter into a civil contract to specify how their assets are to be governed under existing law I have no problem with that but with the way that liberal courts in some states are attempting to rewrite the intent of the law the only solution to preserve the traditional sanctity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a constitutional amendment.

 

Rosie O'Donnell and her "partner" were married this week. The news accounts say that the couple "have four children together". Ummm...surely there was third party involvement here.