Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That is quite a rant. I'm not even sure what side you're on here although from what ever little sense that can make of it , you're not a fan of same sex marriage . The issue is the acceptance of same sex marriage. Can you please just comment on that and leave out the religious mumbo jumbo , Japan, China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, race ,communism and whatever other crap that's in there . Get a grip!When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.
Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.
Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."
Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?
Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):
"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."
What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)
By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?
You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?
Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.
"Society determines who they want to accept"
so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?
because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?
you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?
According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.
If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?
The is the USA
NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!
YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment
Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)
So, let me be blunt:
Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.
We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.
OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.
Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.
I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.
Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.
Gay rights is about much more than what you do in the bedroomAny liberterian that is serious about keeping government out of peoples lives will support ones indivual liberty to do what you want in your bedroom.
That is quite a rant. I'm not even sure what side you're on here although from what ever little sense that can make of it , you're not a fan of same sex marriage . The issue is the acceptance of same sex marriage. Can you please just comment on that and leave out the religious mumbo jumbo , Japan, China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, race ,communism and whatever other crap that's in there . Get a grip!Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.
Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."
Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?
Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):
"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."
What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)
By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?
You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?
Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.
"Society determines who they want to accept"
so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?
because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?
you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?
According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.
If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?
The is the USA
NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!
YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment
Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)
So, let me be blunt:
Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.
We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.
OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.
Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.
I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.
Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.
Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."
Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?
Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):
"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."
What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)
By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?
You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?
Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.
"Society determines who they want to accept"
so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?
because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?
you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?
According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.
If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?
The is the USA
NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!
YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment
Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)
So, let me be blunt:
Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.
We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.
OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.
Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.
I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.
Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.
Are you a Christian or are you white? You poor "persecuted" thing. You talk "liberty" but you want to deny it to others. You don't know if you would have passed the entrance exam had it not been for people who didn't look like you taking the exam. Maybe the people who have surpassed you also are Christians, but what's it to ya? You sound like you are a white male who can't accomplish anything by yourself and have a great big chip on your shoulder. Why don't you just go out and accomplish something worthwhile instead of trying to hang on to the bootstraps of long-dead people?
You sound like an ignorant dumbass. I have plenty of my own accomplishments - enough so that I don't have to denigrate people like you. But, I am sorry for you nonetheless.
Gay Marriage Around the World
Support for equality grows every year with a total of 30 countries legalising it so far. The number increases every year and the countries that are hostile seem to be places which are ruled by religious extremists .
This is backed up by polling which shows support at around 2 thirds in favour in Australia,US and up to 80% plus in Sweden.
I cant see this trend being reversed and can see the majority of nations having similar laws in the next decade.
In the spirit of all men being created equal should the US and EU countries take steps to encourage this ? What would you like to see ?
For myself I think it can be difficult to overturn prejudice and I dont really know whether the stick or carrot is the best way forward.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
Actually rights are determined by popular vote.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
Actually rights are determined by popular vote.
Nonsense. Your rights, and my rights, to freedom of speech, association, religious choice, voting, etc., may not be taken away by the vote of any majority.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
Actually rights are determined by popular vote.
Nonsense. Your rights, and my rights, to freedom of speech, association, religious choice, voting, etc., may not be taken away by the vote of any majority.
Check your facts moron.
What was the 19th amendment ?
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
Actually rights are determined by popular vote.
Nonsense. Your rights, and my rights, to freedom of speech, association, religious choice, voting, etc., may not be taken away by the vote of any majority.
Check your facts moron.
What was the 19th amendment ?
And? It just rectifies as past mistake in founding a republic and affirms that we do, indeed, live in a republic.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
Actually rights are determined by popular vote.
Nonsense. Your rights, and my rights, to freedom of speech, association, religious choice, voting, etc., may not be taken away by the vote of any majority.
Check your facts moron.
What was the 19th amendment ?
And? It just rectifies as past mistake in founding a republic and affirms that we do, indeed, live in a republic.
Proposition 8 in CA.
All showing that an entire state allows people to establish "rights" via a elections.
Sorry...history is not on your side.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
You misunderstood me. What I want is for NO government to recognize ANY marriage sanctioned by any religion. Only civil unions would be recognized by governments. We'd all be separate so we'd all be equal. You can call yourself married if you care to just don't expect a tax break without a gov't recognized, civil union on file. This plan will separate the state from religions.Wrong ! If you are not legally married the federal government does not recognize it for the purpose of any benefits. But it is not about a tax break. Married couples get to file a joint return if that is in their best interest. You don't automatically pay less taxes for being married. Every case is different.In the US, marriage offers various legal rights and privileges. Secular governments should not be sanctioning marriage, that should be in the domain of religions, they should only sanction civil unions. Civil unions provide the rights of marriage without the introduction of any religion. If your church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they don't have to perform one, but that doesn't mean a gay couple can't get a tax break like other couples.It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.
Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that religious people can enjoy the status of marriage, but that the rest of us should be relegated to a civil union. Are you serious? Can you even begin to contemplate the constitutional implications?
Marriage is a rightThat is quite a rant. I'm not even sure what side you're on here although from what ever little sense that can make of it , you're not a fan of same sex marriage . The issue is the acceptance of same sex marriage. Can you please just comment on that and leave out the religious mumbo jumbo , Japan, China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, race ,communism and whatever other crap that's in there . Get a grip!Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."
Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?
Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):
"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."
What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)
By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?
You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?
Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.
"Society determines who they want to accept"
so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?
because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?
you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?
According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.
If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?
The is the USA
NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!
YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment
Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)
So, let me be blunt:
Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.
We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.
OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.
Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.
I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.
Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.
Edited meister
Both sides suck. I'm my own man. Marriage is a privilege, not a Right. If the government wants to grant a privilege and call it a "right," they are welcome to. It still requires a license and you cannot demand permission from a superior authority - unless you like the word NO.
Privately, I'm not a fan of same sex marriage. AND it is not within any court's authority to change the laws on that. The legislatures have to create some kind of legal status. If they do, they do. But it's bad precedent to give the courts that kind of power. They should not be in the Rights granting business.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of smoking, but what other people do in private and in a manner that does not hurt me, then I do not interfere with them. Your Rights end where my nose begins. Other than that, Liberty is a gift from the Creator and is given upon birth to ALL men (which is inclusive of women too in the DOI context.)
In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.
The right to marry and the Constitution
Furthermore:That is quite a rant. I'm not even sure what side you're on here although from what ever little sense that can make of it , you're not a fan of same sex marriage . The issue is the acceptance of same sex marriage. Can you please just comment on that and leave out the religious mumbo jumbo , Japan, China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, race ,communism and whatever other crap that's in there . Get a grip!Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."
Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?
Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):
"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."
What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)
By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?
You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?
Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.
"Society determines who they want to accept"
so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?
because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?
you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?
According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.
If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?
The is the USA
NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!
YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment
Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)
So, let me be blunt:
Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.
We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.
OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.
Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.
I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.
Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.
Edited meister
Both sides suck. I'm my own man. Marriage is a privilege, not a Right. If the government wants to grant a privilege and call it a "right," they are welcome to. It still requires a license and you cannot demand permission from a superior authority - unless you like the word NO.
Privately, I'm not a fan of same sex marriage. AND it is not within any court's authority to change the laws on that. The legislatures have to create some kind of legal status. If they do, they do. But it's bad precedent to give the courts that kind of power. They should not be in the Rights granting business.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of smoking, but what other people do in private and in a manner that does not hurt me, then I do not interfere with them. Your Rights end where my nose begins. Other than that, Liberty is a gift from the Creator and is given upon birth to ALL men (which is inclusive of women too in the DOI context.)
You ignore the fact that the majority of people support the idea of Gay Marriage. It is just a dwindling minority of folk who have a problem with it.I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
I agree to a point. Government and religious recognition should be separate. It is ridiculous that you get a marriage license from the government and take it to a clergy to finalize it. I believe that in Europe, all marriages are performed by a government official and if the parties so wish, they can then go to their religious institution and have a religious wedding .You misunderstood me. What I want is for NO government to recognize ANY marriage sanctioned by any religion. Only civil unions would be recognized by governments. We'd all be separate so we'd all be equal. You can call yourself married if you care to just don't expect a tax break without a gov't recognized, civil union on file. This plan will separate the state from religions.Wrong ! If you are not legally married the federal government does not recognize it for the purpose of any benefits. But it is not about a tax break. Married couples get to file a joint return if that is in their best interest. You don't automatically pay less taxes for being married. Every case is different.In the US, marriage offers various legal rights and privileges. Secular governments should not be sanctioning marriage, that should be in the domain of religions, they should only sanction civil unions. Civil unions provide the rights of marriage without the introduction of any religion. If your church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they don't have to perform one, but that doesn't mean a gay couple can't get a tax break like other couples.It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.
Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that religious people can enjoy the status of marriage, but that the rest of us should be relegated to a civil union. Are you serious? Can you even begin to contemplate the constitutional implications?
