In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Gay marriage:so you know how MA new law affects U
CAPITOL REVIEW
By State Senator Mark Hillman
For those who laughed at the prediction that runaway judges would someday impose gay marriage by judicial fiat, the time has come to eat crow.
Thanks to the self-aggrandizing Massachusetts Supreme Court, that state will soon obliterate the line between natural marriage and the "enlightened" definition which makes marriage nothing more than a domestic contract between consenting adults.
Coloradans should care because the U.S. Constitution requires that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." A marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in all 50 states.
The democratic foundation of our Republic is mere inconvenience to these robed dictators who hold their own morality in such high esteem that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant.
Not only is this yet another stellar illustration of judicial activism, it gives lie to the notion that "imposing morality" is the sole domain of the political right.
Contrary to assertions by the screaming left, most conservatives don't care what goes on in their neighbor's bedroom -- not that many weddings take place in bedrooms.
In fact, legislation addressing same-sex relationships and sexual orientation has come exclusively from the political left in the past two sessions of the Colorado General Assembly. The lone entry from the right is this year's resolution urging Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.
However, courts stir the pot by ordering legislatures to adopt gay marriage or civil union laws in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court incredibly declared last summer that the U.S. Constitution contained a guarantee of the right to homosexual sodomy, a right unnoticed for more than two centuries by earlier justices.
It is clear from Lawrence v. Texas that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to declare gay marriage to be an unwritten fundamental right at its next opportunity. In Lawrence, the court's majority agreed "that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education."
Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes just as heterosexual persons do."
Although Kennedy later opined that Lawrence did not "involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," his 18-page opinion laid the groundwork for gay rights advocates to argue that homosexual marriage meets the same criteria the court used to declare a fundamental right to gay sex.
America faces a choice: amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage in its natural context or do nothing and let the courts "interpret" homosexual marriage into the constitution. If the former doesn't occur, the latter most certainly well.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-Fort Morgan) is clearly in the right place at the right time. After leading the fight to preserve the natural definition of marriage in Colorado, she was elected to Congress just prior to Lawrence v. Texas. The Federal Marriage Amendment, which she and Sen. Wayne Allard sponsor, states:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Ratification is not a longshot if Congress will bring the amendment to a vote. Already, 38 states -- including California -- have passed laws preserve the natural definition of marriage. Threatened with the prospect of five justices taking away our right to define marriage, citizens may prefer to draw the line themselves
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
By State Senator Mark Hillman
For those who laughed at the prediction that runaway judges would someday impose gay marriage by judicial fiat, the time has come to eat crow.
Thanks to the self-aggrandizing Massachusetts Supreme Court, that state will soon obliterate the line between natural marriage and the "enlightened" definition which makes marriage nothing more than a domestic contract between consenting adults.
Coloradans should care because the U.S. Constitution requires that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." A marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in all 50 states.
The democratic foundation of our Republic is mere inconvenience to these robed dictators who hold their own morality in such high esteem that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant.
Not only is this yet another stellar illustration of judicial activism, it gives lie to the notion that "imposing morality" is the sole domain of the political right.
Contrary to assertions by the screaming left, most conservatives don't care what goes on in their neighbor's bedroom -- not that many weddings take place in bedrooms.
In fact, legislation addressing same-sex relationships and sexual orientation has come exclusively from the political left in the past two sessions of the Colorado General Assembly. The lone entry from the right is this year's resolution urging Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.
However, courts stir the pot by ordering legislatures to adopt gay marriage or civil union laws in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court incredibly declared last summer that the U.S. Constitution contained a guarantee of the right to homosexual sodomy, a right unnoticed for more than two centuries by earlier justices.
It is clear from Lawrence v. Texas that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to declare gay marriage to be an unwritten fundamental right at its next opportunity. In Lawrence, the court's majority agreed "that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education."
Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes just as heterosexual persons do."
Although Kennedy later opined that Lawrence did not "involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," his 18-page opinion laid the groundwork for gay rights advocates to argue that homosexual marriage meets the same criteria the court used to declare a fundamental right to gay sex.
America faces a choice: amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage in its natural context or do nothing and let the courts "interpret" homosexual marriage into the constitution. If the former doesn't occur, the latter most certainly well.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-Fort Morgan) is clearly in the right place at the right time. After leading the fight to preserve the natural definition of marriage in Colorado, she was elected to Congress just prior to Lawrence v. Texas. The Federal Marriage Amendment, which she and Sen. Wayne Allard sponsor, states:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Ratification is not a longshot if Congress will bring the amendment to a vote. Already, 38 states -- including California -- have passed laws preserve the natural definition of marriage. Threatened with the prospect of five justices taking away our right to define marriage, citizens may prefer to draw the line themselves
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
Comments
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
"Go to Lakedaemon, stranger passing by;
And say there, that in obedience to her law, here we lie"
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you.
Rita Mae Brown
Also, my observations on this are that most that disagree with gay marriage do so for religious reasons. And as far as I am concerned religion has ZERO place in the laws of our country.
SALLY
Committee member-Ducks Unlimited
The gene pool needs chlorine.
dennis
marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Nebraska overwhelmingly voted in favor of this. It was interesting
getting the signitures for a vote from the people. The pro-homo
crowd we're rude to say the least.
Read Michael Savages book; The Enemy Within if you'd need a bit
of a wake up call. I was long aware of many of the perverted
agendas of the left, but Michael managed to shock me with facts
unknown to me. I hadn't realized how far they'd come with
promotion of their sick lives.
HAPPINESS IS LIKE PEEING YOURSELF, EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT BUT ONLY YOU CAN FEEL ITS WARMTH.
good ol` taxachusettes, no longer are we gonna be known as "THE BAY STATE", thanks to those idiot judges letting those pickle smokers and carpet munchers get married were now gonna be known as "THE GAY STATE"!! i dont want my two children growing up being forced to look at these things walking hand in hand like its ok.....ITS NOT !!! and i dont think it has anything to do with god because i personally dont believe in that stuff,why are we the only species that screws the same sex ???were a male sex and a female sex for a reason, we need each other to reproduce,our species isnt gonna get anywhere by steve pushing in adams stool for him its f`ed up and flat out wrong , i have no use for them like a jennings or a raven, im sure i offended someone, that wasnt my intention, but homosexuals offend me and its just disgusting!![:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
HAPPINESS IS LIKE PEEING YOURSELF, EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT BUT ONLY YOU CAN FEEL ITS WARMTH.
Interesting... So basically you just hate homosexuals? No religion needed. Amazing!
As the old saying goes...
We're here
We're queer
Get used to it
Last I heard the courts were a check and ballance on our system of government. Sounds like some of you here would like to do away with the courts all together?
Regards,
He Dog
OK rant ended
May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.
- General George Patton Jr
How can you possibly expect people who are too confused to be able to figure out what gender they are to try to be "normal"?
quote:I don't force my beliefs on them, why is it impossible for them to return the favor?
That got me to thinking. Oh no! But isn't outlawing gay marriage doing just that to them? Forcing your beliefs on them.
SALLY
Committee member-Ducks Unlimited
Some people might kick and scream about morals, but if that's the case, let that be between them and God. I've known several gay folks who were nicest folks in the world.
Given that homosexuality has been documented back to biblical times and IS exhibited in some animals (primates, my friend's dog [?] ), I don't think it's a learned behavior.
The flamboyant ones that have gay pride crap all over and dress in outlandish parade costumes are a little annoying, but those seem to be the exception and not the rule.
CAPITOL REVIEW
Coloradans should care because the U.S. Constitution requires that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." A marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in all 50 states.
What about my permit to carry issued to me by the state of Pennsylvnia? If I get caought carrying in New Jersey, I get thrown in the slammer, and the Federal government does not seem to care, notwithstanding this constitutional provision.
I dont care what they do in Massachusettes-if Massachusettes wants to make a mockery out of the institution of marriage, that is their business. But do not pollute the rest of the country with this nonsense. Does the rest of the country have to be forced to recognize these marriages? Absolutely not! Are we in danger of having one of these cases go to the Supreme court? We are, but we do not have to be, if Congress takes up its constitutional duty and authority.
Someone mentioned "the courts were a check and balance on our system of government"-They arent. To descibe them as a check and balance IN our system of government would be accurate, but to infer that the courts "check and balance our system of government" is false. I know many would like to believe that, especially those, like homosexuals, who cant get the legislatures to buy into their homosexual agenda, and therefore hope that the courts will rule in their favor in an "above the law" manner.
Let the absurdity run rampant in Massachusettes, Vermont, California, Jersey(you are next), but as soon as they go to the courts seeking equal protection, and "full faith and credit", and expect their marriages to be recognized in normal states, congress MUST step in and prohibit the court from hearing any cases dealing with the homosexual agenda.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Here we go again. Gay marriages...what's so special about straight marriages? Half end in divorce anyway. I don't care who marries who as long as they are two consenting adults. The homophobes will never be able to see homosexuality as anything but evil and a choice somebody makes. Can anybody tell me why a man would willingly CHOOSE to be with another man?
So you are ok with them getting the complete rights that a hetrosexual couple does? Lets see,we'll give em healthcare,foodstamps,and oh ya,let em adopt children into their "Chosen lifestyle".I was taught to PROTECT children...Yes I am my brothers keeper..
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it affect you. Get over it, live your own life and let other citizens of this free country live theirs. Good grief! If these hard liners would put all the money they spend in court fighting this, imagine what GOOD they could actually do. [V] Marriage has become a joke anyway. What is the divorce rate now. Above 50% isn't it? That is shamefull. Sanctity of marriage, ha, now that has become a joke.[:(] I just think there are so many more important things that we should worry about.
Also, my observations on this are that most that disagree with gay marriage do so for religious reasons. And as far as I am concerned religion has ZERO place in the laws of our country.
SALLY
Committee member-Ducks Unlimited
This has been aired here before but just HOW do you even come close to this?(zero religion) ONE more time,MOST all of the founders were CHRISTIANS,they based al ot of what they wrote with the scriptures in mind,the early JUSTICES made their decisions based a lot upon BIBLICAL principle and did in fact often quote the verse that helped them to arrive at their decision....So they were ALL WRONG,ALL the time? My faith aside I still object to it.The act ,behind closed doors,well I'd never no would I? But to allow the to be everywhere ALL the time and to consider it a HEALTHY alternative lifestyle....?...NO ,for them to adopt children...No ....I just can't get there...If they keep it between them and God or whoever ,whatever they worship,or don't,fine.........
And as far as I am concerned religion has ZERO place in the laws of our country.
Well you know what they say about opinions.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Salzo, they tried to make a law last year saying that if one state recognized these people as married the rest of the states would not be forced to recognize them, but it failed. Some are pushing for a Const. amendment recognizing only marriage as only between a man and a woman. Pres. Bush says he would support.
Personally I am opposed to a constitutional amendment. I think marriage should be an issue that remains with the states.
And I do not like the law that you mentioned, because it is unecessary, and the court can always rule that a federal law denying the recognition of same sex marriages from another state is unconstitutional.
The best solution, is for congress to prohibit the Syupreme court from hearing any cases related to marriage, both normal and bizarre marriages.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by longhunter
quote:Originally posted by bsally
It doesn't affect me, nor does it affect you. Get over it, live your own life and let other citizens of this free country live theirs. Good grief! If these hard liners would put all the money they spend in court fighting this, imagine what GOOD they could actually do. [V] Marriage has become a joke anyway. What is the divorce rate now. Above 50% isn't it? That is shamefull. Sanctity of marriage, ha, now that has become a joke.[:(] I just think there are so many more important things that we should worry about.
Also, my observations on this are that most that disagree with gay marriage do so for religious reasons. And as far as I am concerned religion has ZERO place in the laws of our country.
SALLY
Committee member-Ducks Unlimited
This has been aired here before but just HOW do you even come close to this?(zero religion) ONE more time,MOST all of the founders were CHRISTIANS,they based al ot of what they wrote with the scriptures in mind,the early JUSTICES made their decisions based a lot upon BIBLICAL principle and did in fact often quote the verse that helped them to arrive at their decision....So they were ALL WRONG,ALL the time? My faith aside I still object to it.The act ,behind closed doors,well I'd never no would I? But to allow the to be everywhere ALL the time and to consider it a HEALTHY alternative lifestyle....?...NO ,for them to adopt children...No ....I just can't get there...If they keep it between them and God or whoever ,whatever they worship,or don't,fine.........
I've only known a couple kids with gay parents, but they turned out straight.
Heck, if anything, I'd think we'd have to worry more about keeping kids away from popstars and priests.
Member: NRA, RFC, John Birch Society, American Numismatic Association.
But those same founding fathers made a conscious effort to limit the degree to which religion played a part in politics (see 1st Amendment).
No they didnt. The only limiting that was done was limiting the federal government from getting involved with religion. With respect to our discussion, the founders would have no objection to state laws prohibiting gay marriage, or sodomy, based on religious principles(see 1st amendment).
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040214-120825-7104r.htm
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
As far as those who say, "let them pay the marriage penalty", Bush said he would do away with that.
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
I am against gays but if they start their own religion that supports being gay, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The people are just fostering more big government by not realizing this and allowing more silly laws that the government has no power to enact.
"I dont care how thin you make a pancake, it still has two sides"
"A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
But those same founding fathers made a conscious effort to limit the degree to which religion played a part in politics (see 1st Amendment).
No they didnt. The only limiting that was done was limiting the federal government from getting involved with religion. With respect to our discussion, the founders would have no objection to state laws prohibiting gay marriage, or sodomy, based on religious principles(see 1st amendment).
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
mpol, your last statement is the proof that it is NOT genetic. It is a choice. Evidence points towards genetics??? If it was normal genetics, half the population would be fags.
As far as those who say, "let them pay the marriage penalty", Bush said he would do away with that.
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
quote:Originally posted by Red223
A Marriage is a religious ceremony. Governments have no power to try to regulate or manage them. That is separation of church and state.
I am against gays but if they start their own religion that supports being gay, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The people are just fostering more big government by not realizing this and allowing more silly laws that the government has no power to enact.