For G.T.: Support for Log Cabin Republicans and Reforms to GOP Platform

[emilynghiem]

Dear G.T. Impenitent is honestly trying to explain where I am sounding like I am off base.
Can you please reply as well to the posts for you to explain what I am saying or doing wrong here

Let me try again with the marriage idea.
Let's use prayer as the example.

What if all the people have agreed to prayers as part of state functions,
or oaths of office, that make references to God or divine concepts.

This has been going on historically as a tradition everyone accepts as part of the govt process
even though it does make references to beliefs.

Later on, groups that were traditionally left out of these prayers or oaths
rally to change the law to include references to their beliefs or terms for God or spirituality
that suddenly the other members of the public DON'T agree to include in oaths and prayers.

They were okay with references to God and Jesus, but not
changing the terms to Greater Good and Justice which is argued
as being more inclusive to more people.

The groups cannot agree anymore on the prayer and oath policies.

A. I am saying to remove the prayers and oaths if people cannot agree on terms.
If we COULD Agree that Justice is a more generic term for what Jesus represents,
we could AGREE that is more universal and neutral. But the GOVT cannot FORCE
people to change what they believe. So I am saying this agreement on what to change
the process to still has to be by CONSENT and free choice of the people NOT forced by govt laws.

B. You are saying but the prayers and oaths were ALREADY practiced by the state,
and now you want to remove them.

Yes, because before, people AGREED to have them in the state using certain terms.
if they no longer agree on the terms, then because these prayers and oaths
involve faith based BELIEFS people retain free choice to consent or dissent and can't be
forced to adopt or enforce something by govt they don't believe.

You and I can agree all we want that Justice is a more universal term than Jesus,
but since this is faith based policy we still have to respect FREE CHOICE of people to accept change or not.

G.T. does this help explain that just because marriage
was already implemented through the state doesn't mean you can
add faith based conditions to it and keep it there. You still changed
the agreement and unfortunately it isn't by consent of the entire public.

If this was just "civil laws" as you said there wouldn't be this HUGE contention.

But fining people for not renting facilities or providing services for a gay wedding
is penalizing people for their beliefs. It isn't just neutral, it isn't just adding equal rights
and access for others. It's also penalizing and illegalizing the right of people to dissent in their BELIEFS.

So that is where i would insist that such faith based laws be written passed and implemented by CONSENT.

Does this help to explain? Thanks G.T.

 

[G.T.]

impenitent said it more concisely than i did.

i called you a phony bigot.

he deconstructed how.

read his post over and over and over.

the way he arrived at that?????

is because you're see through.

 

[Impenitent]

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

!

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

Dear G.T. I would AGREE if the laws would remain completely neutral.
So yes I am arguing to write them where they WOULD keep any other beliefs OUT of state jurisdiction.

That would solve the problem if the laws were written and implemented to be completely secular matters only.
In which case EVERYONE could have civil unions and domestic partnerships and not imply anything further.
I AGREE that would be the ideal goal. And we should work toward that, as the whole point of separating the beliefs!

Sorry G.T. but if you look at what happened in cases
in Texas and Florida, you can see how the state takes over these marriage issues:

* in Texas the courts gave custody of children back to their abusive fathers who had a string of
corrupt connections between their lawyers and the judges making the decisions that were paying each other off.

There was not a separation of the govt authority from the beliefs and consent of the actual families affected,
and this connection got corrupted where judicial campaign funding influenced certain lawyers and judges in these cases.

Since the govt had authority to DICTATE for the families what their divorce arrangements would be,
this caused damage to the best interests of the children. This controversy with the Family Law center was protested visibly with sit in strikes over a year and led to public exposure and some degree of action and reforms.

I knew the ladies who fought the battle and took turns striking and protesting on a rotating basis until the issues were addressed. One activist was even killed in a hit and run "accident" walking all the way to Austin in protest of this scandal.

This is NOT separating church and state
but giving the state unequal authority to make PERSONAL decisions FOR the family and minor children
based on being "married" as husband/wife and giving up decision making authority to the state

This is an example of why I stand for mediation and consensus so there isn't this temptation to throw decisions
with conflicts of interests favoring one side over another. I believe in protecting ALL sides and especially the kids' interests.
so CONSENSUS is the best standard, not giving state "divine authority of God" to make decisions FOR people as "justice."

* in Florida Terri Schiavo left no written proof, no directive in writing that she wanted to refuse life support.
So on the word and belief of her ex-husband, the court endorsed HIS beliefs over her families about
her right to live or die. the court basically played GOD and made the decision FOR the family that was in conflict.

The correct way to "separate church and state" would be to order these people to mediate or
take a vote or something to settle the dispute between them where THEY as the FAMILY make the spiritual decision
since nothing in writing was left behind by Terri.

NOT have the judge in court make the spiritual decision
"just because her husband has more legal standing"
when in fact, he had a PROVEN conflict of interest
as already living with another woman and no longer acting as the husband anyway.
He wanted to end the relationship, so why not let the family take over guardianship as they asked?

This is a Spiritual decision yet it was decided by the Court
due to recognizing the LEGAL HUSBAND of Terri Schiavo even though that was disputed in SPIRIT.

There were too many conflicts of interest in that case.
The court should not have decided for the family where life and death and means of termination involve Spiritual beliefs.

clearly this violates Separation of Church and State.

I think that, rather than than reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state, that Emily is part of the Texas right wing movement with an adjenda focused on making fundimentalitst Christianity the basis for all law.

I'm not overstating the significance of this movement, it having already infiltrating the state board of education, and succeeded in removing Thomas Jefferson from all textbooks.

 

[Impenitent]

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

!

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

Dear G.T. I would AGREE if the laws would remain completely neutral.
So yes I am arguing to write them where they WOULD keep any other beliefs OUT of state jurisdiction.

That would solve the problem if the laws were written and implemented to be completely secular matters only.
In which case EVERYONE could have civil unions and domestic partnerships and not imply anything further.
I AGREE that would be the ideal goal. And we should work toward that, as the whole point of separating the beliefs!

Sorry G.T. but if you look at what happened in cases
in Texas and Florida, you can see how the state takes over these marriage issues:

* in Texas the courts gave custody of children back to their abusive fathers who had a string of
corrupt connections between their lawyers and the judges making the decisions that were paying each other off.

There was not a separation of the govt authority from the beliefs and consent of the actual families affected,
and this connection got corrupted where judicial campaign funding influenced certain lawyers and judges in these cases.

Since the govt had authority to DICTATE for the families what their divorce arrangements would be,
this caused damage to the best interests of the children. This controversy with the Family Law center was protested visibly with sit in strikes over a year and led to public exposure and some degree of action and reforms.

I knew the ladies who fought the battle and took turns striking and protesting on a rotating basis until the issues were addressed. One activist was even killed in a hit and run "accident" walking all the way to Austin in protest of this scandal.

This is NOT separating church and state
but giving the state unequal authority to make PERSONAL decisions FOR the family and minor children
based on being "married" as husband/wife and giving up decision making authority to the state

This is an example of why I stand for mediation and consensus so there isn't this temptation to throw decisions
with conflicts of interests favoring one side over another. I believe in protecting ALL sides and especially the kids' interests.
so CONSENSUS is the best standard, not giving state "divine authority of God" to make decisions FOR people as "justice."

* in Florida Terri Schiavo left no written proof, no directive in writing that she wanted to refuse life support.
So on the word and belief of her ex-husband, the court endorsed HIS beliefs over her families about
her right to live or die. the court basically played GOD and made the decision FOR the family that was in conflict.

The correct way to "separate church and state" would be to order these people to mediate or
take a vote or something to settle the dispute between them where THEY as the FAMILY make the spiritual decision
since nothing in writing was left behind by Terri.

NOT have the judge in court make the spiritual decision
"just because her husband has more legal standing"
when in fact, he had a PROVEN conflict of interest
as already living with another woman and no longer acting as the husband anyway.
He wanted to end the relationship, so why not let the family take over guardianship as they asked?

This is a Spiritual decision yet it was decided by the Court
due to recognizing the LEGAL HUSBAND of Terri Schiavo even though that was disputed in SPIRIT.

There were too many conflicts of interest in that case.
The court should not have decided for the family where life and death and means of termination involve Spiritual beliefs.

clearly this violates Separation of Church and State.

I think that, rather than than reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state, that Emily is part of the Texas right wing movement with an adjenda focused on making fundimentalitst Christianity the basis for all law.

I'm not overstating the significance of this movement, it having already infiltrating the state board of education, and succeeded in removing Thomas Jefferson from all textbooks.

Fundamentalist Agenda. Damn, I should have looked at this sooner!

If you want to shorten your responses and double your time fixing errors - get an iphone!

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

!

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

Dear G.T. I would AGREE if the laws would remain completely neutral.
So yes I am arguing to write them where they WOULD keep any other beliefs OUT of state jurisdiction.

That would solve the problem if the laws were written and implemented to be completely secular matters only.
In which case EVERYONE could have civil unions and domestic partnerships and not imply anything further.
I AGREE that would be the ideal goal. And we should work toward that, as the whole point of separating the beliefs!

Sorry G.T. but if you look at what happened in cases
in Texas and Florida, you can see how the state takes over these marriage issues:

* in Texas the courts gave custody of children back to their abusive fathers who had a string of
corrupt connections between their lawyers and the judges making the decisions that were paying each other off.

There was not a separation of the govt authority from the beliefs and consent of the actual families affected,
and this connection got corrupted where judicial campaign funding influenced certain lawyers and judges in these cases.

Since the govt had authority to DICTATE for the families what their divorce arrangements would be,
this caused damage to the best interests of the children. This controversy with the Family Law center was protested visibly with sit in strikes over a year and led to public exposure and some degree of action and reforms.

I knew the ladies who fought the battle and took turns striking and protesting on a rotating basis until the issues were addressed. One activist was even killed in a hit and run "accident" walking all the way to Austin in protest of this scandal.

This is NOT separating church and state
but giving the state unequal authority to make PERSONAL decisions FOR the family and minor children
based on being "married" as husband/wife and giving up decision making authority to the state

This is an example of why I stand for mediation and consensus so there isn't this temptation to throw decisions
with conflicts of interests favoring one side over another. I believe in protecting ALL sides and especially the kids' interests.
so CONSENSUS is the best standard, not giving state "divine authority of God" to make decisions FOR people as "justice."

* in Florida Terri Schiavo left no written proof, no directive in writing that she wanted to refuse life support.
So on the word and belief of her ex-husband, the court endorsed HIS beliefs over her families about
her right to live or die. the court basically played GOD and made the decision FOR the family that was in conflict.

The correct way to "separate church and state" would be to order these people to mediate or
take a vote or something to settle the dispute between them where THEY as the FAMILY make the spiritual decision
since nothing in writing was left behind by Terri.

NOT have the judge in court make the spiritual decision
"just because her husband has more legal standing"
when in fact, he had a PROVEN conflict of interest
as already living with another woman and no longer acting as the husband anyway.
He wanted to end the relationship, so why not let the family take over guardianship as they asked?

This is a Spiritual decision yet it was decided by the Court
due to recognizing the LEGAL HUSBAND of Terri Schiavo even though that was disputed in SPIRIT.

There were too many conflicts of interest in that case.
The court should not have decided for the family where life and death and means of termination involve Spiritual beliefs.

clearly this violates Separation of Church and State.

I think that, rather than than reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state, that Emily is part of the Texas right wing movement with an adjenda focused on making fundimentalitst Christianity the basis for all law.

I'm not overstating the significance of this movement, it having already infiltrating the state board of education, and succeeded in removing Thomas Jefferson from all textbooks.

Fundamentalist Agenda. Damn, I should have looked at this sooner!

If you want to shorten your responses and double your time fixing errors - get an iphone!

Hi Impenitent
(1) There is difference between
* Fundamentalists pushing their beliefs through govt, such as trying to legislate "prolife" based on faith based arguments,
and
* Constitutionalists recognizing BOTH prochoice and prolife beliefs as equal creeds.

These are not the same thing.

I can support both gun rights and gun control activists in being represented EQUALLY in laws and rulings,
and that is not the same thing as being a Fundmentalist only pushing gun rights as an absolute law.

(2) If you are saying it is not possible to be a Constitutionalist for both sides equally,
is this why you believe that being open to both is actually backing the Fundmentalists who will bully over
the opposing view if all things are equal. Are you saying it's like pitting men against women in a physical
fight, setting it up equally, but that means the men who are physical stronger will overpower the women.

Is this why you and G.T. ASSUME that treating both sides as equal beliefs
is the same as voting for the dominating Fundamentalist side?

Is that why you feel you need the Govt to take the side of the underdog to even make it even?

Just trying to figure out why assume that being open to both sides in an argument
is the same as taking the side of the Fundamentalists. Is it because you see them as
bigger political bullies?

 

[G.T.]

You cant support both pro choice and pro life under the law.

Same with gun control.

 

[Impenitent]

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

!

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

Dear G.T. I would AGREE if the laws would remain completely neutral.
So yes I am arguing to write them where they WOULD keep any other beliefs OUT of state jurisdiction.

That would solve the problem if the laws were written and implemented to be completely secular matters only.
In which case EVERYONE could have civil unions and domestic partnerships and not imply anything further.
I AGREE that would be the ideal goal. And we should work toward that, as the whole point of separating the beliefs!

Sorry G.T. but if you look at what happened in cases
in Texas and Florida, you can see how the state takes over these marriage issues:

* in Texas the courts gave custody of children back to their abusive fathers who had a string of
corrupt connections between their lawyers and the judges making the decisions that were paying each other off.

There was not a separation of the govt authority from the beliefs and consent of the actual families affected,
and this connection got corrupted where judicial campaign funding influenced certain lawyers and judges in these cases.

Since the govt had authority to DICTATE for the families what their divorce arrangements would be,
this caused damage to the best interests of the children. This controversy with the Family Law center was protested visibly with sit in strikes over a year and led to public exposure and some degree of action and reforms.

I knew the ladies who fought the battle and took turns striking and protesting on a rotating basis until the issues were addressed. One activist was even killed in a hit and run "accident" walking all the way to Austin in protest of this scandal.

This is NOT separating church and state
but giving the state unequal authority to make PERSONAL decisions FOR the family and minor children
based on being "married" as husband/wife and giving up decision making authority to the state

This is an example of why I stand for mediation and consensus so there isn't this temptation to throw decisions
with conflicts of interests favoring one side over another. I believe in protecting ALL sides and especially the kids' interests.
so CONSENSUS is the best standard, not giving state "divine authority of God" to make decisions FOR people as "justice."

* in Florida Terri Schiavo left no written proof, no directive in writing that she wanted to refuse life support.
So on the word and belief of her ex-husband, the court endorsed HIS beliefs over her families about
her right to live or die. the court basically played GOD and made the decision FOR the family that was in conflict.

The correct way to "separate church and state" would be to order these people to mediate or
take a vote or something to settle the dispute between them where THEY as the FAMILY make the spiritual decision
since nothing in writing was left behind by Terri.

NOT have the judge in court make the spiritual decision
"just because her husband has more legal standing"
when in fact, he had a PROVEN conflict of interest
as already living with another woman and no longer acting as the husband anyway.
He wanted to end the relationship, so why not let the family take over guardianship as they asked?

This is a Spiritual decision yet it was decided by the Court
due to recognizing the LEGAL HUSBAND of Terri Schiavo even though that was disputed in SPIRIT.

There were too many conflicts of interest in that case.
The court should not have decided for the family where life and death and means of termination involve Spiritual beliefs.

clearly this violates Separation of Church and State.

I think that, rather than than reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state, that Emily is part of the Texas right wing movement with an adjenda focused on making fundimentalitst Christianity the basis for all law.

I'm not overstating the significance of this movement, it having already infiltrating the state board of education, and succeeded in removing Thomas Jefferson from all textbooks.

Fundamentalist Agenda. Damn, I should have looked at this sooner!

If you want to shorten your responses and double your time fixing errors - get an iphone!

Hi Impenitent
(1) There is difference between
* Fundamentalists pushing their beliefs through govt, such as trying to legislate "prolife" based on faith based arguments,
and
* Constitutionalists recognizing BOTH prochoice and prolife beliefs as equal creeds.

These are not the same thing.

I can support both gun rights and gun control activists in being represented EQUALLY in laws and rulings,
and that is not the same thing as being a Fundmentalist only pushing gun rights as an absolute law.

(2) If you are saying it is not possible to be a Constitutionalist for both sides equally,
is this why you believe that being open to both is actually backing the Fundmentalists who will bully over
the opposing view if all things are equal. Are you saying it's like pitting men against women in a physical
fight, setting it up equally, but that means the men who are physical stronger will overpower the women.

Is this why you and G.T. ASSUME that treating both sides as equal beliefs
is the same as voting for the dominating Fundamentalist side?

Is that why you feel you need the Govt to take the side of the underdog to even make it even?

Just trying to figure out why assume that being open to both sides in an argument
is the same as taking the side of the Fundamentalists. Is it because you see them as
bigger political bullies?

I'm saying that calling yourself a constitutionalist is a false flag.

Your emphasis seems to be on an agenda that is very unconstitutional, and has, in fact, been found to be so, even by a very conservative Supreme Court.

Explain how one can be against the death penalty while wanting to "keep it on the books."

Explain how citizenship should be stripped from those who attempt to invoke their rights.

Explain why the wall of separation between church and state should no longer exist.

You actually support a hard core fascist viewpoint , while paying lip service to liberal causes. Name a current Democratic/Obama initiative that you've actually supported! Don't you find it more than coincidental that you're always on the conservative side?

 

[emilynghiem]

You cant support both pro choice and pro life under the law.

Same with gun control.

Dear G.T. the way to support both is not to oppose either one.

The closest I've been able to come to being fair of both views equally is
(1) NOT SUPPORTING OR PASSING ANY LAWS THAT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OBJECTS TO (OR BOTH)

I believe laws on this should be agreed and passed by consensus, since abortion involves BELIEFS (about "when does life begin" or "when does the soul or human conscience/will form that constitutes a person")
that are NOT proven by science, these arguments are FAITH-based. People have a RIGHT to their
faith but CANNOT impose them on others. So the prolife position cannot be legislated
but it cannot be infringed either. See Amendment One where religion can NEITHER
be established/imposed NOR prohibited by law. The laws must be NEUTRAL and not impose either way!

If people AGREE on laws they can pass as Constitutional by having no bias.
If any law either SUPPORTS or VIOLATES "faith based" beliefs it is Unconstitutional.
Or if a law passes that puts financial responsibility on the opposing side for things that oppose their beliefs,
then technically that law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You cannot make citizens support endorse or pay for
something that is against their beliefs or creed.

So if I support only CONSTITUTIONAL laws that both sides AGREE WITH
that is respecting both Prochoice and Prolife equally. So no laws can pass without consensus
and nobody's beliefs are violated!

(2) Agreeing to prevent abortion 100% by FREE CHOICE
By wiping out all causes of relationship abuse, sexual abuse,
rape, incest, coercion, anything that would otherwise risk or lead to abortion.
All this can be prevented by education and counseling in advance,
but it cannot be legislated. I find it has to be by FREE CHOICE
(similar to how the Prolife advocates do all their prevention work by FREE CHOICE not force of law)

This is both PROLIFE because abortion is prevented 100%,
with the goal of absolutely 0 abortions.

This is best done by taking the PROCHOICE approach
so there is no argument or distraction over politics and policies
but all the focus is on PREVENTION.

The PREVENTION requires intervention in advance
that the govt cannot regulate or legislate anyway.

The PREVENTION efforts have to be by FREE CHOICE
because of the personal decisions involved that only people can control and make, not govt.

Dear G.T. being prolife and prochoice at the same time is like
* being 100% for Christianity or for Spiritual Healing
while recognizing Govt cannot mandate this, it has to be chosen by FREE WILL
not forced by law.

* being 100% AGAINST the death penalty, wanting to wipe it out by never having
to use it, but keeping the choice of capital punishment legal on the books.
Just never using that choice, though it can be invoked as leverage in negotiations
to PREVENT having to use it.

Executions can be wiped out by preventing all murder, all capital crimes that
require premeditated plans (so if this is planned in advance, then it can be prevented).
And this does not require banning the death penalty as "not an option."

Same with abortion, it can be a choice but never have to invoke it.

So that is how I can be 100% for ending ALL abortions and ALL executions,
but WITHOUT banning them but leaving the choice on the books as an option
(unless there is a CONSENSUS on law by the entire public to ban these).

 

[G.T.]

You cant support both pro choice and pro life under the law.

Same with gun control.

Dear G.T. the way to support both is not to oppose either one.

The closest I've been able to come to being fair of both views equally is
(1) NOT SUPPORTING OR PASSING ANY LAWS THAT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OBJECTS TO (OR BOTH)

I believe laws on this should be agreed and passed by consensus, since abortion involves BELIEFS (about "when does life begin" or "when does the soul or human conscience/will form that constitutes a person")
that are NOT proven by science, these arguments are FAITH-based. People have a RIGHT to their
faith but CANNOT impose them on others. So the prolife position cannot be legislated
but it cannot be infringed either. See Amendment One where religion can NEITHER
be established/imposed NOR prohibited by law. The laws must be NEUTRAL and not impose either way!

If people AGREE on laws they can pass as Constitutional by having no bias.
If any law either SUPPORTS or VIOLATES "faith based" beliefs it is Unconstitutional.
Or if a law passes that puts financial responsibility on the opposing side for things that oppose their beliefs,
then technically that law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You cannot make citizens support endorse or pay for
something that is against their beliefs or creed.

So if I support only CONSTITUTIONAL laws that both sides AGREE WITH
that is respecting both Prochoice and Prolife equally. So no laws can pass without consensus
and nobody's beliefs are violated!

(2) Agreeing to prevent abortion 100% by FREE CHOICE
By wiping out all causes of relationship abuse, sexual abuse,
rape, incest, coercion, anything that would otherwise risk or lead to abortion.
All this can be prevented by education and counseling in advance,
but it cannot be legislated. I find it has to be by FREE CHOICE
(similar to how the Prolife advocates do all their prevention work by FREE CHOICE not force of law)

This is both PROLIFE because abortion is prevented 100%,
with the goal of absolutely 0 abortions.

This is best done by taking the PROCHOICE approach
so there is no argument or distraction over politics and policies
but all the focus is on PREVENTION.

The PREVENTION requires intervention in advance
that the govt cannot regulate or legislate anyway.

The PREVENTION efforts have to be by FREE CHOICE
because of the personal decisions involved that only people can control and make, not govt.

You are a serious whackjob.

You did not just explain how both prolife and prochoice can be equally represented under the law....you laid out a groundwork you feel would elimnate abortion altogether....

And being that its pie in the sky fucking impossible fantasy what you just said...

I revert to orevious statements: youre a fucking idiot.

 

[G.T.]

Write the law emily.

Write it down. Lets see it.

 

[G.T.]

Abortion is legal.

Thats not a law, its a lack thereof making it ILLEGAL.

But prolife still has a problem with it.

You fail.

 

[emilynghiem]

You cant support both pro choice and pro life under the law.

Same with gun control.

Dear G.T. the way to support both is not to oppose either one.

The closest I've been able to come to being fair of both views equally is
(1) NOT SUPPORTING OR PASSING ANY LAWS THAT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OBJECTS TO (OR BOTH)

I believe laws on this should be agreed and passed by consensus, since abortion involves BELIEFS (about "when does life begin" or "when does the soul or human conscience/will form that constitutes a person")
that are NOT proven by science, these arguments are FAITH-based. People have a RIGHT to their
faith but CANNOT impose them on others. So the prolife position cannot be legislated
but it cannot be infringed either. See Amendment One where religion can NEITHER
be established/imposed NOR prohibited by law. The laws must be NEUTRAL and not impose either way!

If people AGREE on laws they can pass as Constitutional by having no bias.
If any law either SUPPORTS or VIOLATES "faith based" beliefs it is Unconstitutional.
Or if a law passes that puts financial responsibility on the opposing side for things that oppose their beliefs,
then technically that law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You cannot make citizens support endorse or pay for
something that is against their beliefs or creed.

So if I support only CONSTITUTIONAL laws that both sides AGREE WITH
that is respecting both Prochoice and Prolife equally. So no laws can pass without consensus
and nobody's beliefs are violated!

(2) Agreeing to prevent abortion 100% by FREE CHOICE
By wiping out all causes of relationship abuse, sexual abuse,
rape, incest, coercion, anything that would otherwise risk or lead to abortion.
All this can be prevented by education and counseling in advance,
but it cannot be legislated. I find it has to be by FREE CHOICE
(similar to how the Prolife advocates do all their prevention work by FREE CHOICE not force of law)

This is both PROLIFE because abortion is prevented 100%,
with the goal of absolutely 0 abortions.

This is best done by taking the PROCHOICE approach
so there is no argument or distraction over politics and policies
but all the focus is on PREVENTION.

The PREVENTION requires intervention in advance
that the govt cannot regulate or legislate anyway.

The PREVENTION efforts have to be by FREE CHOICE
because of the personal decisions involved that only people can control and make, not govt.

You are a serious whackjob.

You did not just explain how both prolife and prochoice can be equally represented under the law....you laid out a groundwork you feel would elimnate abortion altogether....

And being that its pie in the sky fucking impossible fantasy what you just said...

I revert to orevious statements: youre a fucking idiot.

Dear G.T. I have a better chance of reaching a consensus between
prochoice and prolife by focusing on wiping out the causes of rape and abuse
than thinking you can keep fighting for laws favoring one side or the other which is unconstitutional.

At least my approach is Constitutional.
And yes, I do believe the causes of all abuse, murder, rape and crime
can be eliminated or reduced to maybe 1-2% where there are some cases that can't be caught in time.

Even cancer and other diseases are not caught 100% in advance to save every life.

As for a consensus on laws, I find WOMEN have a better chance of embracing both
prochoice and prolife, while the men tend to take sides and stick to theirs.

So the solution may come from the WOMEN who have more interest in preventing rape.

The men seem to be content with just letting Women suffer the consequences
and not holding the men responsible for paying lifelong restitution for rape victims for the damage caused.

Men's response to rape usually takes the form of "clobbering" the rapist, but I don't see any talk of restitution
or PREVENTION of rape, by getting to the cause, Just killing men who are abusers, and thinking that's justice.

G.T. until we address the MALE side of the equation
then the laws on abortion are Unconstitutional if they keep policing WOMEN after the pregnancy occurs.

What about the MEN.
So that is where the people need to work on prevention to wipe out unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
The Govt cannot police that level.

Sorry if you do not like my answers, GT but that is reality.

If you really expect to represent Prolife and Prochoice beliefs equally under law
then prevention has to be enforced, at a level that satisfies the Prolife side as preventing abortion 100%, so it is not left to a Govt issue where it's all prochoice to avoid targeting and discriminating against women.

 

[G.T.]

You cant support both pro choice and pro life under the law.

Same with gun control.

Dear G.T. the way to support both is not to oppose either one.

The closest I've been able to come to being fair of both views equally is
(1) NOT SUPPORTING OR PASSING ANY LAWS THAT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OBJECTS TO (OR BOTH)

I believe laws on this should be agreed and passed by consensus, since abortion involves BELIEFS (about "when does life begin" or "when does the soul or human conscience/will form that constitutes a person")
that are NOT proven by science, these arguments are FAITH-based. People have a RIGHT to their
faith but CANNOT impose them on others. So the prolife position cannot be legislated
but it cannot be infringed either. See Amendment One where religion can NEITHER
be established/imposed NOR prohibited by law. The laws must be NEUTRAL and not impose either way!

If people AGREE on laws they can pass as Constitutional by having no bias.
If any law either SUPPORTS or VIOLATES "faith based" beliefs it is Unconstitutional.
Or if a law passes that puts financial responsibility on the opposing side for things that oppose their beliefs,
then technically that law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You cannot make citizens support endorse or pay for
something that is against their beliefs or creed.

So if I support only CONSTITUTIONAL laws that both sides AGREE WITH
that is respecting both Prochoice and Prolife equally. So no laws can pass without consensus
and nobody's beliefs are violated!

(2) Agreeing to prevent abortion 100% by FREE CHOICE
By wiping out all causes of relationship abuse, sexual abuse,
rape, incest, coercion, anything that would otherwise risk or lead to abortion.
All this can be prevented by education and counseling in advance,
but it cannot be legislated. I find it has to be by FREE CHOICE
(similar to how the Prolife advocates do all their prevention work by FREE CHOICE not force of law)

This is both PROLIFE because abortion is prevented 100%,
with the goal of absolutely 0 abortions.

This is best done by taking the PROCHOICE approach
so there is no argument or distraction over politics and policies
but all the focus is on PREVENTION.

The PREVENTION requires intervention in advance
that the govt cannot regulate or legislate anyway.

The PREVENTION efforts have to be by FREE CHOICE
because of the personal decisions involved that only people can control and make, not govt.

You are a serious whackjob.

You did not just explain how both prolife and prochoice can be equally represented under the law....you laid out a groundwork you feel would elimnate abortion altogether....

And being that its pie in the sky fucking impossible fantasy what you just said...

I revert to orevious statements: youre a fucking idiot.

Dear G.T. I have a better chance of reaching a consensus between
prochoice and prolife by focusing on wiping out the causes of rape and abuse
than thinking you can keep fighting for laws favoring one side or the other which is unconstitutional.

At least my approach is Constitutional.
And yes, I do believe the causes of all abuse, murder, rape and crime
can be eliminated or reduced to maybe 1-2% where there are some cases that can't be caught in time.

Even cancer and other diseases are not caught 100% in advance to save every life.

As for a consensus on laws, I find WOMEN have a better chance of embracing both
prochoice and prolife, while the men tend to take sides and stick to theirs.

So the solution may come from the WOMEN who have more interest in preventing rape.

The men seem to be content with just letting Women suffer the consequences
and not holding the men responsible for paying lifelong restitution for rape victims for the damage caused.

Men's response to rape usually takes the form of "clobbering" the rapist, but I don't see any talk of restitution
or PREVENTION of rape, by getting to the cause, Just killing men who are abusers, and thinking that's justice.

G.T. until we address the MALE side of the equation
then the laws on abortion are Unconstitutional if they keep policing WOMEN after the pregnancy occurs.

What about the MEN.
So that is where the people need to work on prevention to wipe out unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
The Govt cannot police that level.

Sorry if you do not like my answers, GT but that is reality.

If you really expect to represent Prolife and Prochoice beliefs equally under law
then prevention has to be enforced, at a level that satisfied the Prolife side as preventing abortion 100%,
so it is not left to a Govt issue where it's all prochoice to avoid targeting and discriminating against women.

The law doesn't favor one side or the other already. That's just your stupidity that I am talking about. Abortion is legal there for pro life and pro choice are both legally protected to practice as they wish. What don't you get about that?

 

[G.T.]

Same thing with marriage law. Gay marriage is legal, straight marriage is legal, both are free to practice as they wish. What's the problem? Oh, right, bigotry needs to be represented and your guiding it in the name of fairness which is disgusting

 

[emilynghiem]

Same thing with marriage law. Gay marriage is legal, straight marriage is legal, both are free to practice as they wish. What's the problem? Oh, right, bigotry needs to be represented and your guiding it in the name of fairness which is disgusting

Dear G.T. It also used to be legal to mention God, lead prayer in schools,
and have Bibles, Crosses and Nativity Scenes on public property.

But all that changed when people started suing to remove references to BELIEFS they didn't share.

Now it's the Left's turn to experience what it's like to have BELIEFS that other people
are saying don't belong in public institutions.

Welcome to the world of "separating church and state"

We liberals on the left either need to be CONSISTENT and remove ALL beliefs,
or our Party is guilty of Discriminating by CREED by only allowing Liberal beliefs
(such as right to health care and right to marriage) to "cross the line separating church and state")
while banning, protesting or removing/punishing other people's beliefs.

G.T. I think part of the problem is you do not have the same knowledge and
experience of Spiritual Healing, so you don't understand beliefs about people changing their orientation.

This affects people's perception of the different beliefs involved:
* belief that all homosexuality is born and not a choice, and is on the level of race
* belief that all homosexuality is unnatural, is a behavior not a inborn trait, and is not protected by law
* belief that some orientation can change and some cannot
* belief that this is personal, spiritual, behavior, choice and/or NOT the business of govt
* belief that this is fundamental to human rights and MUST be protected by govt
* belief that MORE of the cases of homosexuality are not a choice and should be protected by govt
due to extreme discrimination
* belief that MORE of the cases of homosexuality ARE a choice and should NOT be protected by govt

Since you do not seem to understand the beliefs that homosexuality has been changed
by healing the root causes spiritually,
then you seem to reject my beliefs as "FALSE"
the SAME way extreme opponents believe all homosexuality is FALSE and UNNATURAL/SICK
and don't understand that "some people are spiritually that way for life and cannot change"

G.T. if you want people to be open to understand to SOME people it is NOT a choice that can change,
it seems only fair to ask YOU to be open to understand that SOME people HAVE changed
and realized it was unnatural, unwelcome and sick and they got help to remove the causes of unwanted attractions
that weren't natural for them and WERE able to be changed.

BOTH sides need to do more to embrace the views of the other side.
These are all BELIEFS, none of them are proven by science,
but they have been demonstrated to people by Experience.

If we are going to follow the laws on not discriminating by CREED, and equal protection of the laws,
then ALL beliefs should be protected for those people from infringement by others.

Especially if you and I are arguing for human EQUALITY.
Neither you, me or these other sides can be in the business of abusing govt to discriminate against other creeds or beliefs.

We would be hypocrites, and you made it VERY CLEAR you don't support bigots who are only enforcing their beliefs
and not accounting for the equal rights of others.

I am honored to know you G.T. I think your little girl should be
very proud to have a dad who goes to bat and fights politically for freedom
as you do, and wish all citizens would fight this hard to work things out.

We would have constitutional laws if we all pushed to get rid of all abuses and inconsistencies
that are mucking up the system. Thank you, G.T. keep up the good fight and I support you 100%
in defending your beliefs against infringement as I also defend the equal beliefs of others not to be excluded either!

Together, we can form a consensus on laws so nobody's beliefs are imposed upon.
But we need all people's input, and all objections to be resolved, in order to form consensual solutions
that everyone can agree on.

 

[emilynghiem]

Same thing with marriage law. Gay marriage is legal, straight marriage is legal, both are free to practice as they wish. What's the problem? Oh, right, bigotry needs to be represented and your guiding it in the name of fairness which is disgusting

Buddhism Islam and Christian beliefs are all legal to practice.
But that doesn't mean the state should incorporate these into public process and law.

Many Christians believe that if people sue to remove prayer or Creation from schools,
that is being AGAINST their beliefs. Similarly, when I argue to respect separation of church and state, you keep assuming that means I am AGAINST gay marriage, when all I am saying is not to impose it through the state (and the same for traditional marriage if this is excluding people).
This is like saying if people don't agree on Creation or Evolution, then teach NEITHER through the school unless there is a consensus in that district on how to teach these things; get them all out or else have a consensus that represents that community, district or state.

There are MANY people who are merely arguing these practices don't belong
in public institutions, but are perfectly legal in private practice where all people
are free to pursue their own ways without imposing theirs for the ENTIRE public.

Marriage and social benefits are not REQUIRED to go through the state.
Nonprofits like Red Cross, religious organizations like the Mormons, and many groups have set up national and international programs to manage programs for members VOLUNTARILY.

People have tolerated these social programs being managed by federal and state govt,
but if enough people do not consent then this can be changed.

If you think the gays have been organizing to defend their rights,
when the Constitutionalists organize to defend the beliefs in limited govt
the same changes can take place where those beliefs can be practiced equally, too!

And there are more Constitutionalists who believe in holding Govt to the original
Constitutional structures and limits on authority than there are % of gays among the population.

If you are going to protect beliefs in gay rights and marriage,
it is only fair to protect beliefs in the Constitution and limits on Govt.

Otherwise it is unconstitutional for govt to endorse one creed and not others.
It's a violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Civil Rights.

The same arguments you make for gay marriage rights and marriage equality
can be made for Constitutional beliefs in states rights and limited federal govt.

If you want your creed protected by govt, others deserve the same protection for their creeds.
It's only fair.

 

[G.T.]

Yea done. Brick wall, skull too thick corrupted and dumb.

 

[Impenitent]

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

!

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

Dear G.T. I would AGREE if the laws would remain completely neutral.
So yes I am arguing to write them where they WOULD keep any other beliefs OUT of state jurisdiction.

That would solve the problem if the laws were written and implemented to be completely secular matters only.
In which case EVERYONE could have civil unions and domestic partnerships and not imply anything further.
I AGREE that would be the ideal goal. And we should work toward that, as the whole point of separating the beliefs!

Sorry G.T. but if you look at what happened in cases
in Texas and Florida, you can see how the state takes over these marriage issues:

* in Texas the courts gave custody of children back to their abusive fathers who had a string of
corrupt connections between their lawyers and the judges making the decisions that were paying each other off.

There was not a separation of the govt authority from the beliefs and consent of the actual families affected,
and this connection got corrupted where judicial campaign funding influenced certain lawyers and judges in these cases.

Since the govt had authority to DICTATE for the families what their divorce arrangements would be,
this caused damage to the best interests of the children. This controversy with the Family Law center was protested visibly with sit in strikes over a year and led to public exposure and some degree of action and reforms.

I knew the ladies who fought the battle and took turns striking and protesting on a rotating basis until the issues were addressed. One activist was even killed in a hit and run "accident" walking all the way to Austin in protest of this scandal.

This is NOT separating church and state
but giving the state unequal authority to make PERSONAL decisions FOR the family and minor children
based on being "married" as husband/wife and giving up decision making authority to the state

This is an example of why I stand for mediation and consensus so there isn't this temptation to throw decisions
with conflicts of interests favoring one side over another. I believe in protecting ALL sides and especially the kids' interests.
so CONSENSUS is the best standard, not giving state "divine authority of God" to make decisions FOR people as "justice."

* in Florida Terri Schiavo left no written proof, no directive in writing that she wanted to refuse life support.
So on the word and belief of her ex-husband, the court endorsed HIS beliefs over her families about
her right to live or die. the court basically played GOD and made the decision FOR the family that was in conflict.

The correct way to "separate church and state" would be to order these people to mediate or
take a vote or something to settle the dispute between them where THEY as the FAMILY make the spiritual decision
since nothing in writing was left behind by Terri.

NOT have the judge in court make the spiritual decision
"just because her husband has more legal standing"
when in fact, he had a PROVEN conflict of interest
as already living with another woman and no longer acting as the husband anyway.
He wanted to end the relationship, so why not let the family take over guardianship as they asked?

This is a Spiritual decision yet it was decided by the Court
due to recognizing the LEGAL HUSBAND of Terri Schiavo even though that was disputed in SPIRIT.

There were too many conflicts of interest in that case.
The court should not have decided for the family where life and death and means of termination involve Spiritual beliefs.

clearly this violates Separation of Church and State.

I think that, rather than than reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state, that Emily is part of the Texas right wing movement with an adjenda focused on making fundimentalitst Christianity the basis for all law.

I'm not overstating the significance of this movement, it having already infiltrating the state board of education, and succeeded in removing Thomas Jefferson from all textbooks.

Fundamentalist Agenda. Damn, I should have looked at this sooner!

If you want to shorten your responses and double your time fixing errors - get an iphone!

Hi Impenitent
(1) There is difference between
* Fundamentalists pushing their beliefs through govt, such as trying to legislate "prolife" based on faith based arguments,
and
* Constitutionalists recognizing BOTH prochoice and prolife beliefs as equal creeds.

These are not the same thing.

I can support both gun rights and gun control activists in being represented EQUALLY in laws and rulings,
and that is not the same thing as being a Fundmentalist only pushing gun rights as an absolute law.

(2) If you are saying it is not possible to be a Constitutionalist for both sides equally,
is this why you believe that being open to both is actually backing the Fundmentalists who will bully over
the opposing view if all things are equal. Are you saying it's like pitting men against women in a physical
fight, setting it up equally, but that means the men who are physical stronger will overpower the women.

Is this why you and G.T. ASSUME that treating both sides as equal beliefs
is the same as voting for the dominating Fundamentalist side?

Is that why you feel you need the Govt to take the side of the underdog to even make it even?

Just trying to figure out why assume that being open to both sides in an argument
is the same as taking the side of the Fundamentalists. Is it because you see them as
bigger political bullies?

You paint youself as if straddling the line on every issue - yet in reality, you stand fully with the right, while occasionally grazing the left side with your pinkie finger.

 

[emilynghiem]

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

Dear G.T. I would AGREE if the laws would remain completely neutral.
So yes I am arguing to write them where they WOULD keep any other beliefs OUT of state jurisdiction.

That would solve the problem if the laws were written and implemented to be completely secular matters only.
In which case EVERYONE could have civil unions and domestic partnerships and not imply anything further.
I AGREE that would be the ideal goal. And we should work toward that, as the whole point of separating the beliefs!

Sorry G.T. but if you look at what happened in cases
in Texas and Florida, you can see how the state takes over these marriage issues:

* in Texas the courts gave custody of children back to their abusive fathers who had a string of
corrupt connections between their lawyers and the judges making the decisions that were paying each other off.

There was not a separation of the govt authority from the beliefs and consent of the actual families affected,
and this connection got corrupted where judicial campaign funding influenced certain lawyers and judges in these cases.

Since the govt had authority to DICTATE for the families what their divorce arrangements would be,
this caused damage to the best interests of the children. This controversy with the Family Law center was protested visibly with sit in strikes over a year and led to public exposure and some degree of action and reforms.

I knew the ladies who fought the battle and took turns striking and protesting on a rotating basis until the issues were addressed. One activist was even killed in a hit and run "accident" walking all the way to Austin in protest of this scandal.

This is NOT separating church and state
but giving the state unequal authority to make PERSONAL decisions FOR the family and minor children
based on being "married" as husband/wife and giving up decision making authority to the state

This is an example of why I stand for mediation and consensus so there isn't this temptation to throw decisions
with conflicts of interests favoring one side over another. I believe in protecting ALL sides and especially the kids' interests.
so CONSENSUS is the best standard, not giving state "divine authority of God" to make decisions FOR people as "justice."

* in Florida Terri Schiavo left no written proof, no directive in writing that she wanted to refuse life support.
So on the word and belief of her ex-husband, the court endorsed HIS beliefs over her families about
her right to live or die. the court basically played GOD and made the decision FOR the family that was in conflict.

The correct way to "separate church and state" would be to order these people to mediate or
take a vote or something to settle the dispute between them where THEY as the FAMILY make the spiritual decision
since nothing in writing was left behind by Terri.

NOT have the judge in court make the spiritual decision
"just because her husband has more legal standing"
when in fact, he had a PROVEN conflict of interest
as already living with another woman and no longer acting as the husband anyway.
He wanted to end the relationship, so why not let the family take over guardianship as they asked?

This is a Spiritual decision yet it was decided by the Court
due to recognizing the LEGAL HUSBAND of Terri Schiavo even though that was disputed in SPIRIT.

There were too many conflicts of interest in that case.
The court should not have decided for the family where life and death and means of termination involve Spiritual beliefs.

clearly this violates Separation of Church and State.

I think that, rather than than reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state, that Emily is part of the Texas right wing movement with an adjenda focused on making fundimentalitst Christianity the basis for all law.

I'm not overstating the significance of this movement, it having already infiltrating the state board of education, and succeeded in removing Thomas Jefferson from all textbooks.

Fundamentalist Agenda. Damn, I should have looked at this sooner!

If you want to shorten your responses and double your time fixing errors - get an iphone!

Hi Impenitent
(1) There is difference between
* Fundamentalists pushing their beliefs through govt, such as trying to legislate "prolife" based on faith based arguments,
and
* Constitutionalists recognizing BOTH prochoice and prolife beliefs as equal creeds.

These are not the same thing.

I can support both gun rights and gun control activists in being represented EQUALLY in laws and rulings,
and that is not the same thing as being a Fundmentalist only pushing gun rights as an absolute law.

(2) If you are saying it is not possible to be a Constitutionalist for both sides equally,
is this why you believe that being open to both is actually backing the Fundmentalists who will bully over
the opposing view if all things are equal. Are you saying it's like pitting men against women in a physical
fight, setting it up equally, but that means the men who are physical stronger will overpower the women.

Is this why you and G.T. ASSUME that treating both sides as equal beliefs
is the same as voting for the dominating Fundamentalist side?

Is that why you feel you need the Govt to take the side of the underdog to even make it even?

Just trying to figure out why assume that being open to both sides in an argument
is the same as taking the side of the Fundamentalists. Is it because you see them as
bigger political bullies?

You paint youself as if straddling the line on every issue - yet in reality, you stand fully with the right, while occasionally grazing the left side with your pinkie finger.

Dear Impenitent:

How is being prochoice standing on the right with every issue.

I find that most of the liberal/progressive goals are being achieved by independent groups
working on their own instead of getting caught in in govt bureaucracy.

And these ARE liberals and progressives with the Greens and Democrats doing the work.

I have invested over 60,000 and 15-20 years supporting community groups in poor
Black districts led by Democrats.

The money I have lent to women nonprofit leaders, who happen to be Republican,
is a much smaller fraction because most of the people struggling are the Democrats and liberals.
Republicans and conservatives generally do not need as much help.

Why are saying this, Impenitent?

If you want to talk with my other friends who are Democrats and Greens
and hear from them how much I have invested in those efforts,
maybe you need to check DIRECTLY with the sources
instead of assuming and making things up based on what you THINK is going on.

You keep thinking anything to do with Constitutional govt is only the rightwing.

The Constitutional principles reflect NATURAL LAWS about social order and govt
that apply to ALL PEOPLE.

So bringing Constitutional ethics and civics education to the poor Black
and Minority communities is not just rightwing. It's about being prochoice
when all people have equal knowledge authority and participation in govt.

Why are you calling this rightwing?

Are you saying the left has no rights to invoke Constitutional law
and authority, and this is only monopolized by the rightwing?

A lot of the Blacks believe Constitutional law is only for the White Man.

But I find the same Constitutional laws are universal principles
that govern all people, so it is important we all know and exercise
and enforce these laws instead of letting anyone monopolize them.

I find it a critical issue that we QUIT associating Constitutional laws with only the rightwing.

That is creating victim mentality,
as if everyone on the Left is relegated to just 'reacting and counteracting" what
the rightwing does as the default or dominant group. Why are you
saying only the rightwing has the power to invoke Constitutional authority?

All people have the right and responsibility for invoking and enforcing
laws in order for the PEOPLE to be the govt.

We need to come up with a better paradigm than dividing
leftwing as people depending on other people running govt
vs.
rightwing as people taking responsibility for Constitutional law enforcement directly.

Otherwise that just plays into the stereotype of leftwing liberals
being a bunch of sheep or victims while other people are always in power.

That's not equal.

With equal education and experience in law and govt
anyone can manage their own programs. Why not liberate all people
from this left/right divisive mentality. That can't be healthy to
keep subjugating people to groups controlled by haves and have not.

Why not provide equal legal education, experience, and assistance
to all people to help make decisions affecting them.
Is that really only rightwing to promote civil liberty and responsibility,
or isn't that the same as prochoice and full inclusion of diverse minorities
that the Democrats and Progressives seek to enforce for ALL people!

 

[G.T.]

Its clear that emily is not psychologically well. Think its best to leave her be at this point impenitent.