The liberals are abuzz with talk of a "gay rights" bill in the legislature. And here I was thinking that people who choose to be gay had the same God-given rights as you and I. The same right to free speech, free excercise of religion, the right to bear arms and so forth.
So I guess what they mean is "special" rights. They want something different than what you or I have. Fine, but here's the rule: prove that you are gay.
That's the real catch here. It's not provable. (or disprovable *cough* John Edwards) At least with the other "special rights" folks you can say with scientific certainty that yes, this person is black, hispanic, etc.
And what about those folks who are married for twenty years to a member of the opposite sex and then "discover" (not a mid-life crisis, no sir) that they are gay? Would these new "rights" be conferred on them at the age of 45? Rights that were unavailable to them before?
But the important thing that we must remember, this is about not stigmatizing freaks. SEE "transgender"
54 comments:
what brought this up?? Dan may be on the fence himself. Is this the important stuff we find here? How about we give special rights to the blacks.When blacks slam the crackers it's ok but when a white slams some nappy headed hos its a problem.
Very interesting!
Google blocked my Comment because of certain word combinations.
This pretty well confirms who is running the show.
(Google provides this Blogger service, free of charge, but not Free of Speech)
This is all the Fish Wrap can provide about the day-labor protests. Want photos? Just stay with Daniel's blog.
A quote from Rick Hickey is provided in the article.
One black to another, okay to call themselves niggers, bitches, hos, amongst themselves. If it's whitie, ooh look out, have curse on your soul and check into rehab.
This legislation doesn't confer "special rights", it merely sets criteria under which it's illegal to discriminate.
Because the language is "sexual orientation" that means that a gay business can't discriminate because you're straight.
Also, discrimination is often based on perceived sexual orientation. You don't have to be gay to be on the receiving end of anti-gay bias. In fact, the most ardent homophobes often appear to be screaming queens (Lon Mabon, anyone?)
I'm truly curious Dan. How can you scientifically prove that someone is Spanish, and, say, not French or Basque, Moorish or even Andoran?? What "scientific" test would you use to prove that they were Spanish?
If all you have is blood, do you really think you can determine, except in a few medical instances, what the ethnicity of that person is?
Yes.. in general homosexuals have the same basic constitutional rights as the rest of us. What we don't suffer is the civic liability for the way we are. Homosexuals suffer from quite a few liabilites by not having the same access to civic benefits. Many of which are related to marriage.
Anonymous.. Google, as a private enterprise, does not have to provide free speech. And actually, the do provide it Free of Speech they don't like.
Yeah, homosexuals run the show. At least that's what I'm guessing you're trying to say.
Wrong again, Allen.
The mental activity that occurred prior to you typing the sentence that begins, "And here I was thinking ..." cannot justifiably be characterized as "thinking."
"In fact, the most ardent homophobes often appear to be screaming queens (Lon Mabon, anyone?"
You might want to take a look at Dan's picture, and the way he's holding his gun. Can ya get much more phallic and homoerotic than that?
Males pretending to be females, and females pretending to be males is not normal, or natural, or desirable. Perverts have always been present, and still deserve no special rights to either acceptance or their political agenda. Tolerance is the best they can expect, but when given an inch, they will, as usual, try to grab a mile. Current or future legislation will never solve their identity problems, or create emotional stability, or help them live without constant affectation, an attribute which defines them. Sooo sad, but we will oppose this attempt to hijack special rights just as we fought the illegal attempt to usurp the Oregon Constitution (not to mention the will of the people), over the absurdity of homosexual "marriage."
You want gays to prove they're gay?
How about proving that you're not gay? And while you're at it, prove you're a Christian. Also: prove you're a Republican. And finally, even though you've provided your audience with a huge amount of incriminating evidence to the contrary, prove that you're not a fucking idiot.
BTW, all you gays out there: You are in bed with the liberals....and the liberals are in bed with the jihadists....how are the liberals going to protect you from the head-choppers? Homosexuals are #1 on the terrorist hit list (just in case you haven't been paying attention). I know! Show them all of your "special rights." THAT'LL stop 'em!.......sheesh. (and please, don't come whining to me. you're the folks in charge, right?)
Anon 7:27, this is the first I have ever heard about a comment being blocked. Can you elaborate on what the message you got was?
Anon 4:51, you seem to have gotten my point. The only one of those that I can prove, or disprove, is my political registration because it's a matter of public record.
Daniel,
So, when a potential employer says to you "I'm not going to hire you because I think you're gay," and you have absolutely no recourse, you're fine with that?
Whatever your point may have been, it doesn't save you from the fact that "special rights" is the quintessential straw man tactic. Straw man arguments were invented for "special rights."
You found a woman you love, so you married her because that's a right you're afforded by the law. But if a Mary or Susan finds the woman she loves, or if a Bob or Dan finds the man he loves, current state law does not permit them to marry, does it?
Sounds to me like you're the one with the special right. So why not give the same right to them? What are you afraid of? If they have it, and you have it, then that's equal treatment under the law.
Look, argue all you like (from a religious perspective if you must) that gays ought to be treated differently than straights. I believe that it's an offensive argument, and that it's misguided and wrong on many levels, but at least it would represent from-the-gut honesty on your part.
"Special rights" isn't honest. It's a disingenuous, mealy-mouth approach to saying what you really mean. So just say it.
Quite frankly, the state should get out of the marriage biz entirely. Marriage was originally a church or synagogue - or other religious - blessing and declaration of a pact between a man and a woman.
Then the state got involved (whatever happened to separation of church and state? Well, when the state can make money by issuing licenses and such, that all goes by the wayside). It started small: buy a license. Then it got bigger - as always happens when the state gets involved in anything.
Now, they're into a new money-maker: let's just redefine marriage. Collect more fees, and issue licenses to anybody. As long as they pay the state.
"Males pretending to be females, and females pretending to be males is not normal, or natural, or desirable."
Ah, it's nice to know that you are an expert on the subject. Would you care to a)provide your research supporting this or b)present your credentials on the subject?
"Perverts have always been present, and still deserve no special rights to either acceptance or their political agenda."
All transsexuals are perverts? I think you've more than established your expertize on generalizing, in which case I must congratulate you on yet another overly simplistic observation. I'm sure not even all your cohorts agree with you on that one, Bear.
"Tolerance is the best they can expect, but when given an inch, they will, as usual, try to grab a mile."
Another non-nonsensical statement, unless you wish to provide examples for us.
"Current or future legislation will never solve their identity problems, or create emotional stability, or help them live without constant affectation, an attribute which defines them. Sooo sad, but we will oppose this attempt to hijack special rights just as we fought the illegal attempt to usurp the Oregon Constitution (not to mention the will of the people), over the absurdity of homosexual 'marriage.'"
The only thing that is "Sooo sad" is your general lack of understanding of the topic you are attempting to criticize on top of your inability to formulate any sort of argument. Identity problems? Emotional Stability? Bear, you have no insight whatsoever into the psychology of the transsexual or the homosexual. I don't see any lobby for special rights. All I see is a lobby for equality, a lobby for the recognition of natural sexual diversity, a lobby for the rights of those disenfranchised by a clearly religiously biased government. Their lobby for a "special" right is not exclusive in any sense. Rather, it liberates our expression of sexuality from government, and is all inclusive to anyone who chooses to take advantage of it.
This notion of "special rights" is ridiculous. If we are to jump on the bandwagon of "special" rights, I could just as well say the second amendment is a "special right" because I am not a gun owner and therefore have nothing to do with gun owning laws, where as it provides (what you see, Bear, as) a "special privilege".
Also, don't try to make the argument that we are a nation founded on Christian morals.
BTW, all you gays out there: You are in bed with the liberals
LOL, Bear, you really do relish playing the fool, don't you? Tell it to a gay Republican. They do exist, you know. I'll bet some of them share your right-wing views on immigration. The horror! They're everywhere!
Homosexuals are a bunch of degenerate perverts. And yes, they are demanding SPECIAL rights. They get naked and hump each other in the streets in there gay pride marches. They are the main carriers of HIV and AIDS which was orignally called a homosexual disease due to the fact that these diseases are so predominate among the homosexual population. And yes this is a fact based on SCIENCE. I didn't make it up. Homosexuals engage in very risky and deadly behaviors by engaging in frequent sex with multiple partners. Homosexuality itself is a perversion of the natural intended order of sex between a man and woman. It is biologically impossible for a homosexual to procreate.
Homosexuals are demanding not only special rights, but the normalization and acceptance of their dangerous and unhealthy behavior. This poses a definite risk to impressionable youth in the schools, who the homosexuals are actively attempting to convince that homosexuality is a normal, safe , and healthy lifestyle every bit the equal of a relationship between a man and a woman. This is evidenced by such works as, "my two mommies" and my two daddies", as well as teaching about homosexual sex acts as a part of school sex education. They want to legislate acceptance of their behavior. The large numbers of homosexuals in Hollywood have been hitting us with a constant barrage of homosexual propaganda. MTV's Realworld, sitcoms, Broke Back Mountain, etc. I am not even that old, but I can remember the early 80's, when the perverts were still in the closet. Now they are in everyone's face demanding acceptance of their behavior or it will be "discrimination". Therefore, anyone of discerning opinion will be effectivley silenced in the name of "discrimination". They want the right to flaunt their behavior, to shove it in your face, and to abolish your freedom to freely think and express yourself with any opinion contrary to theirs for fear of being fired or sued. They are entitled to their beleifs but we are not entitled to ours.
Homosexuals, it is time for you to return to your closet.
Just because you choose to have a penis shoved up your ass, against physical reality therefore requiring a lubricant to defy nature, you think we should feel sorry for you disgusting pervetts and grant special stuff to you? i do not want my kids exposed to the suicidal, drug using, molested as a child "Gay" anything.
Work? No WAY! We are a TEAM and should not have to deal with someone who has a serious mental problem, it makes us very uncomfortable & non productive.
Housing? I do not want you living next door nor should I have to explain to my kids why the neighbors are wearing womens clothes even though they have no breasts.
it isn't normal, never will be and what happened to FREEDOM of speech.
I can call you a sick faggot and you can call me a homophobe and I won't hire a fucking lawyer over it.
WHAT A BUNCH OF SICK IMMATURE DISGUSTING CRY BABIES-YOUR pushy, arrogant agenda of special "rights" just makes all of us even more resentful.
Illegal aliens molesting children (damaging them for life, making many of them Gay-Ellen? Rosie? etc.) Illegals stealing jobs and benefits from Americans, driving drunk and killing people, selling METH & heroin breaking up families, cheating us out of Taxes, having multiple babies, at our expense, stealing identity, DMV STILL selling Licenses to anyone and...OUR Politicians think the GAY Agenda is more important?
Taliban please blow up that building in salem, easy to spot, has a large gold man on top (white guy too oooh), we really need to start all over again 230 years later, it has gotten out of control and royalty ruling the people is back.
remeber that sign that said to Californian's: thanks for visitng but go home, we need that back, they have destroyed Oregon.
I don't recall Jesus saying anything like "call those you don't like vicious names."
When you find it, let me know. In the meantime, love they neighbor.
Anon 10:01 and 10:14, now that you've had your rant, here's something for you to think about. I suggest you think about it with the seriousness it deserves. Are you ready?
Someone in your family is gay. Maybe not your immediate family, but someone in your family is gay.
If and when the day comes that you have a conversation with that person, I hope that you conduct yourself with more dignity and grace than you have this evening.
Someone in your/my family may be a drug user, a rapist, a murderer, etc. So what? That still doesn't make it right.
Someone in your/my family may be a drug user, a rapist, a murderer, etc. So what? That still doesn't make it right.
The difference, of course, is that with two of the three things you listed, Daniel, the actions of the person in question directly harms others, and the third often leads to actions that harm others.
But being gay doesn't harm anyone else. Sure, it offends people like you, but that's your problem, not their's. It's absurd for society to sanction your bigotry.
It's been my experience that the most vociferous anti-gay bigots are closet cases. I mean, look at Lon Mabon -- he's about as nelly as you can get. And, of course, there's Ted Haggard.
You know, every time this subject comes up and I see the “Fags are disgusting because its against the basic laws of nature, two men can not have a baby” crowd Im always sort of dumb struck.
Do you guys lead the most boring lives ever or are you just the biggest bunch of idiots in the world? Look, the vast majority of sex in the world is non procreative. If your wife is taking birth controls pills strictly so you can get off and not have a baby as a result, would you please tell me how that is somehow natural? Would you also please tell me how a man receiving oral sex from a woman is more natural than a man receiving oral sex from another man?
Frankly, for all their pontificating, this particular crowd is totally full of crap. If not then they are probably the worst lovers in the world and have some very frustrated wives at home. “Oh no honey, we can’t do that, you wouldn’t get pregnant, and it’s not natural”.
Look, the gay marriage issue only comes up because of the idiotic idea to use the tax code for social architecture. Its NATURAL result of using taxes for results other than raising revenue. Marital status should have no bearing whatsoever on ones taxes. If you are running a company I think you should be at liberty to fire someone for being black, white, gay or straight. That doesn’t mean I like that or value it, I just simply value the property rights of the individual more.
Daniel,
I hope one of your children is gay. Then we will see how you conduct yourself as a man, a father, and a human being.
What a terrific, enlightened response, Daniel. Do us all a favor, will you? If one of your kids ever tells you he's gay, have him arrested.
Yes, God forbid one of Daniel's kids turns out gay. It would be so much better if those kids followed in their father's footsteps and became gang members instead.
Many of the finest people I know are gays and lesbians. It bothers me that I'm allowed to marry the person I want, but they aren't.
It's likely that in 30 years gay marriage will be legal in most, if not all, of the country. The rampant homophobia displayed by Daniel and other posters on here is, thankfully, rare among people under 30, and most young people support the right of gay people to marry the person of their choice.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, couples who would love to be able to marry each other, for the same reasons that straight people marry each other, are denied that right.
Well, I wouldn't be bothered too much. Marriage is not a right.
If marriage is not a right, which groups of people do we deny it to?
Murderers in prison are allowed to marry, but gay people are denied the ability to marry the person of their choice.
Are you saying that murderers are better citizens than gay people?
Tell, me, are there other groups of people who currently can marry that you would like to see lose that ability?
yes somebody in my Family WAS GAY, he died from AIDS, NOT cancer or a Car wreck, a disease spread by the transfer of Human Blood cells, most easily accomplished via ANAL SEX. Taxpayers were stuck paying thousands in medical care for him, ALL preventful by not being gAy.
Ever heard of P-FOX, Parents & Friends of EX-GAYS. Yes you can be cured of your horrible and life threating disorder.
IF you wish to be, it IS a choice.
Do not expect most of us too swallow your poisoin pill.
From Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion in Loving v. Virginia:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Notice the word "right" is used liberally regarding marriage in this opinion.
In Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall's opinion in Zablocki v. Redhail:
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....
Again, there's that word, "right."
Finally, here's Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Turner v. Safley:
We disagree with petitioners that Zablocki does not apply to prison inmates. It is settled that a prison inmate "retains those [constitutional] rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.
Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context....
Again, talking about marriage as a fundamental right, that can't even be denied (though it can be limited in scope) to those who are incarcerated.
I was speaking of right in the strict sense of the word, not fleeting court decisions.
A right simply cannot compel the actions of another, as in the case of marriage, which requires recognition to have meaning.
Lets not forget that the Supreme Court frequently divines the existence of rights, say with regard to slavery, only to later decide the right doesn't exist, again with slavery.
Those are opinions, by which we might in fact be governed, but which do not change the essential meaning of the word.
No this does not mean I hate gay people. I am just simply saying that no one has a right to get married in the strictest sense of the word "right".
The reality in the U.S. is that we have the rights that the Supreme Courts say we have.
They've said that, for heterosexuals, marriage is a right that states can't take away.
In fact, in that sense marriage is more of a right than owning a gun, since the government can take away your right to own a gun, and few people would disagree.
Unless you honestly think that prison inmates have the right to own a gun.
Your question and comment about the 45-year-old man is like asking if the right of religious freedom is unavailable to an atheist until he accepts Jesus.
(Hint: In other words, it's a ridiculous example, and a ridiculous question)
Not all gays engage in anonymous and promiscuous sex. Just as all heteros don't engage in anonymous and promiscuous sex. Concentrating soley upon the sex act misses the point, although it's nice to see you think about it so much.
AIDs is not just a homosexual disease. Homosexuals were the first carriers in this country, but it in Africa, it is very much a heterosexual disease. Unprotected sex is dangerous, regardless of your sexual orientation.
Animals in the wild engage in homosexual acts, so it does appear to be natural.
Sterile men and infertile women can't have kids, but we have not problem allowing them to get married.
Homosexuals don't have any more of a "special" right to hump in the street than a straight couple. You sure do think about those images a lot, don't ya?
Last I saw, straight couples also engage in anal sex.
Why on earth could you compare homosexuals to rapists and murderers? LOL, at one time people thought being left handed or having epilepsy was a sign of the devil. Wanna go back to those days? Homosexuality is not a choice. There is not one shred of evidence that supports that position, but emerging research does reinforce the idea that people are born with preferences.
If I get married to a mn (I'm a man), what harm am I causing anyone else?? Why do you homophobes care? If you don't want to be married to someone of the same sex, then don't. If the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex sickens you, then abstain. It truly is that easy.
I don't force you to live your personal life by my personal preferences. What makes you think you should be able to command that I live mine by yours?
Anon 1.14 -
>The reality in the U.S. is that we have the rights that the Supreme Courts say we have.
No, this country was founded on exactly the opposite principle, rights descend from the divine, rather than from government dispensation.
>They've said that, for heterosexuals, marriage is a right that states can't take away.
Guess you are reading different stuff than me. They said any pair of heterosexuals can marry and the state cant say jack? I can marry my sister?
>In fact, in that sense marriage is more of a right than owning a gun, since the government can take away your right to own a gun, and few people would disagree.
Hmm, not quite sure about that since quite obviously government can also take away your "right" to marry given that homosexuals cant marry, blacks and whites at one time couldnt marry and I am pretty sure I cant marry my sister. Quite a few people seem to agree with that as well. Huh, weird.
Yes, this country was founded on the principle that rights descend from the divine, but the reality is that certain groups have had those rights denied.
Do you see voting as a right? That was denied to blacks for nearly 200 years after the founding of this country, and was denied to women for nearly 150 years.
Do you see dissent as a right? That's been denied to various groups throughout the history of our country.
Do you see due process as a right? That was denied to black people in the South, and to American citizens of Japanese descent in the 1940s.
I'm not talking about the principles, I'm talking about reality, and the reality is that our rights are only as strong as the Supreme Court says they are.
I'll prove i'm gay! I'll eat a grrl out right in front of you. When i am through after she has pleased herself on my face. I'll lick my lips and ask for another. Oh Wait! No I wouldn't cause you would enjoy it. Cause I know people Like you. We all do.
Oh come now! You know my previous comment made you randy. You are thinking about it right now. A 25 year old attractive girl that doesn't meet the typical look of a Lez eating another grrl out. You know you are seeing it in your head. And tonight when you go to make false love to your wife. You will think of me and my girl. MMMMM You know you are gonna go download Yuri as we speak.
Actually you know what you've made me just think about! NOTHING tastes better than a grrl in the morning. Can't wait till I wake up besides my grrlfriend in the morning. Thanks to you I will please her in the morning and think of you the entire time. I'll make sure to tell her to go and thank you in the morning. She will be ever so greatful I am certain.
A lot of people are commenting anonymously..I'll sign right in and tell you what I think under my own name. No worries there.
I could go on about what a bigot you are..and how you sour America for the decent people...but that would fall on deaf ears, wouldn't it? Yeah I thought so.
I'm sure you had a redneck mommy and daddy that 'hated queers' and loved Jesus right? We all know that goes hand in hand.
No one is asking for special rights, just protection against discrimination by people like you. People that make me sick to live in this country. People that are so bored with their own lives they have to get involved in everyone elses.
Tell me bud...if you were feeling I dunno..dirty..could you just go and have sex with another man? Is that something you could "choose" to do? If not, why would you assume anyone else could? And if so..yeah you're SO gay..and that explains a lot of your rage.
KISSES
Anon 4.13
Well, given that the entire concept of the Supreme Court deciding constitutional issues is rather novel, dating back to Marbury, I would suggest that this concept is not exactly etched in stone.
This is the crux of the gay marriage debate and quite a few other issues. Finding some contorted wording that allows a reading of an amendment other than its original understanding to produce a desired outcome in the judicial branch, rather than making arguments in the legislative one.
If you are comfortable with nine people deciding this sort of thing by fiat, that's all well and good. If you accept that, and one does by taking this issue to the Supremes rather than Congress, then one must also not get too mad when judicial winds change. If Americans want to be ruled by Kings rather than elected leaders, then constantly taking legislative matters to the courts will give them that in short order.
By the way, I hope it is clear here that I support gay marriage. I just do not support recognition of any marriage by any government entity, nor forcing recognition of any marriage upon an employer or anyone else.
Hey, great, Jack and Louise got married, what a thrill. Why the hell does the fact that they are "getting it on regular" affect their tax rate?
r huse,
Have you actually made any effort whatsoever to try to eliminate governmental recognition of all marriages?
It may work as a rhetorical device, but if you think that it's going to happen anytime soon, then I have a few things I'd like to sell you.
Oh - And yes, my wife, who is female and just got home from work, thought it might be germane for me to add that my previous wife was male. OoOooohhhhh Im so bad. I can just feel the evil-ness coursing through my veins for not only the unnatural acts performed, I guess that would be non procreative sex with my ex as opposed to non procreative sex with my wife.
Oh, and no, I havnt made any effort to disolve government recognition of all marriages. Gee, what an inane and non sensical comment. I guess unless someone has lobbied for an issue then they cant have an opinion.
rhuse...
the concept of inalienable, and natural, rights was fairly new by the time of Marbury as well.
The fact is, we have all given over some of those rights in order to belong to a larger community. My free speech rights in a state of nature is unlimited. Within a the confines a governed body, like the United States, there are limits. And, unfortuantely, someone has to decide what those limits are. Nor do we, as individuals, have the right to personally secede from the laws of the United States.
>the concept of inalienable, and natural, rights was fairly new by the time of Marbury as well.
Yes, true, but the fact that "endowed by their creator" appears at the outset of the constitution and doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room means that the concept is a hell of a lot more etched in stone than the concept that our rights are bestowed upon us by the Supreme Court. That's all I am saying.
>Within a the confines a governed body, like the United States, there are limits. And, unfortuantely, someone has to decide what those limits are.
True, however that is vastly different than saying those rights descend from government, that's all I was saying. The notion that rights descend from government is pernicious and directly contrary to the central idea of the founding of this government. Encouraging the Supremes to take more and more of this approach is dangerous for that very reason and that was my only point with that. Basically if you think its a good idea for the Supremes to be bestowing rights, then be happy with the decisions you like but please don't be angry with decisions like Dred Scott. If you want to be ruled by nine kings, then by all means continue with the judicial approach. Just don't be upset when a president appoints a new king to the panel that you don't agree with.
Actually, that is not in the Constitution. That is in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution does not mention a creator. Unless you're going to look at the very end where it mentions "In the year of our Lord..."
The Declaration of Independce is an important historical document, but contains no legal authority with regards to the people and their relations with the State.
The Rights are etcheded in Stone, but the interpretation of how those Rights are to be exercised is not.
The Government doesn't bestow Rights. However, depending upon the circumstances, they have the legal authority to limit them. And from what I've seen of the Administration, the greatest threat to those Rights do not come from the Courts. If anything, over the last few years, the Courts have tended to expand the scope and applicability of those Rights.
I don't think it is any better to let a Legislature, national or state, grant Rights or privledges to some but not all. They should not favor one group of citizens over another without having a compelling reason for doing so.
And State legislatures have long hid behind the concept of States Rights to do exactly that.
What many people object to is that the courts won't allow the States to marginalize groups that either a majority, or vocal minority, don't like. Some people want to have civil benefits that other can't enjoy. Not because extending those benefits hurts anyone, but because it offends their sensibilities.
Thank God we live in a State with one of the strongest First Amendment protections anywhere.
>Actually, that is not in the Constitution. That is in the Declaration of Independence.
Yep, you are quite right and boy do I hate when I make that mistake. That's one of those that sort of makes you feel the same way as when you go to start the car when it's already on.
>The Declaration of Independce is an important historical document, but contains no legal authority with regards to the people and their relations with the State.
Actually I don't think that's quite true. Judicial rulings are often based on historical documents. 2nd amendment rulings citing English Common law being an example.
>If anything, over the last few years, the Courts have tended to expand the scope and applicability of those Rights.
Interesting thought. I would say in light of the Kelo and McCain Feingold decisions a lot of people would strongly disagree. They seem to be expressing it fairly vehemently with initiating statewide preemptions against Kelo pretty much across the country.
>They should not favor one group of citizens over another without having a compelling reason for doing so.
Well, that is a necessary outcome of using the tax code for social architecture. But wait, there that word compelling and that's why things like the tax code do this, to promote marriage because society has an interest in it for the children's stability. I don't agree with this, but that's how all this crap got started.
>Not because extending those benefits hurts anyone, but because it offends their sensibilities.
I really disagree with this. I think a lot of people, myself included are against extending benefits precisely for that reason, because it does hurt someone, the people paying for all of it. I frankly would love it if the outcome of all this was a repeal of all benefits to spouses of state employees.
in it speaking of
New Tolerance"
April 14, 2007
LAKE OSWEGO, Oregon - On Tuesday, April 11th, members of the Russian Church in Salem were asking, "Where were the churches?", speaking of the rally at the Hearings Monday evening on Senate Bill 2, granting civil right protection to homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals
and other 'gender identities.'
THE MOUNTING THREAT OF STATE HATE LAWS
By Rev. Ted Pike
Attention has recently focused on threatened passage of federal "anti-hate" bill H.R. 1592. But equal danger is faced at the state level, as many state governments are stiffening their own “anti-hate” or "anti-bias" laws. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith is architect of this anti-Christian legislation worldwide. If ADL can’t succeed in using federal force to persecute Christians, state hate laws can be strengthened to do the job. Certainly, ADL made powerful use of Pennsylvania’s "anti-intimidation" law in 2005 to arrest and jail 11 Christians—the work of ADL national executive board member and Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham.
"Bias" Bill in Oregon Threatens Church
Here in Oregon the senate of our legislature has approved sweeping pro-homosexual legislation, S.B. 2, that bans any discrimination in housing or employment. This bill would force churches to hire homosexuals in positions that are not strictly spiritual or educational! These jobs could include bookkeeping, secretarial, maintenance, and employees of any church-related businesses. Judges will have power to say where churches' rights begin or end.
S.B. 2 also mandates a statewide education program to "prevent bias" against homosexuality in young people; that bias means Christians’ Biblical beliefs!
Nearly 500 pastors recently met at our capitol in Salem, protesting to legislators that S.B. 2 threatens our "Judeo-Christian" values and society. But I have a question. How many of these concerned clergy realize this threat has come primarily as a result of liberal Jewish activism?
Forging Chains that Bind the Church
ADL is the "civil liberties" arm of B'nai B'rith International—a worldwide, liberal, very anti-Christian, religious, educational, and fraternal Jewish organization. In 1988 ADL opened a competition to America’s law students to help create a "model anti-hate statute" for America. Jewish law student Joseph Ribakoff was awarded first prize. He advocated that leaders of any organization that showed a video critical of homosexuality should be arrested; members who remained members should also be arrested. (Watch "Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians" at google.)
By 1990, ADL finalized their model hate law statute. That year, ADL also persuaded Congress to pass their "Hate Crimes Statistics Act" which put ADL in charge of instructing the FBI, Justice Department, and all police in their twisted definitions of bias, hate, prejudice, and intolerance.
During the 1990s, ADL visited every state legislature in America and persuaded at least 45 to adopt some version of their model hate law. To each state, ADL said:
1. Homosexuals, as a historically oppressed group, are entitled to special privileges and protections. Their sexual preference deserves equal status with gender, race, and religion.
2. A bias-oriented justice system must be established in the state. Bias against homosexuality is a grave threat to society. If bias motivates any crime, a "hate crime" has been committed.
3. Because bias against victimized groups such as homosexuals and Jews is very bad, triple penalties will be sentenced when such bias motivates a crime.
What’s the message? Any attitude worthy of triple penalties is very, very, very bad. So don't ever be biased…especially against homosexuals!
S.B. 2: Another ADL Hate Crimes Bill
Here in Oregon, S.B. 2 is very much a hate crimes bill. It exemplifies ADL's working definition that "hate" is bias against specially protected groups. When such bias motivates a crime, small or great, a hate crime has occurred.
Under S.B. 2, a church's refusal to hire a homosexual as a secretary or janitor is an illegal act motivated by bias: a hate crime. (Since this crime by church officials is essentially the same as any other hate crime, I am surprised S.B. 2 does not mandate triple penalties. That will probably come soon enough.)
ADL sold its model hate law statutes to legislators during the 1990s as necessary to deter violent bias crime. To most legislators, this goal seems worthy. Between 1990 and 2000, about 45 states practically waited in line to rubberstamp this "win-win" legislation. During that period—apart from national mailings against hate laws by the National Prayer Network and the research work of a few specialists such as Robert L. Knight—virtually no conservative organization protested. At www.adl.org extensive charts quantify ADL's success in persuading states to adopt their model hate law. See if your state earns excellent marks by implementing all ADL's requirements or “fails” by continuing to rely on the traditional judge-and-jury system to obtain justice for victims of all crimes.
Today, ADL along with the ACLU, another Jewish-dominated anti-Christian attack group (See, ACLU Top Heavy with Jews), is encouraging another wave of bias crime legislation. Labor, workplace environment, and fair housing laws all make it a hate crime to be biased and break the law by discrimination against homosexuals.
Why Does ADL Keep Winning?
ADL's agenda is sensationally effective against Christian values because ADL is 100 percent Jewish. According to the unbiblical theology of most evangelicals, Jewish activists can’t be criticized or even identified as the source of this relentless attack. That would mean "cursing God's chosen people." Partly for this reason, no Christian/conservative leader will identify ADL as the primary engine of destruction against Christian civilization. They know that if they do Jewish media will trash them as "anti-Semites," a charge 24 million evangelicals will accept at face value, abandoning all support for that leader's ministry.
Consequently, the church continues to reel from repeated assaults by "organized world Jewry:" ADL, B'nai B'rith, ACLU, People for the American Way, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and myriads of other leftwing Jewish activist groups -- not to mention the Jewish-dominated media.
Jesus said that when a church is "trodden under foot of men," as the American church has been for at least 40 years, there is a simple reason for its powerlessness: "The salt has lost its savor." (Luke 14:34)
Such heroes of the faith as Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Paul possessed the "true grit" of undiluted spiritual saltiness. They spoke boldly against Jewish evil, leaving the consequences to God. They did not fear the Jewish fable that God will rain wrath upon the individual who criticizes "God's chosen people."
Instead of an imagined threat from God, evangelical leaders should fear the very real and Biblical warning that if a leader does not alert the people promptly and specifically concerning the approach of the enemy he will lose his eternal soul. (Ezek. 33:6) Leaders may fear losing their ministry today if they criticize ADL; but if ADL is allowed to destroy America behind the scenes they will soon lose their ministry anyway. In fact, their silence today may someday cost them their lives tomorrow.
How does the church regain the spiritual saltiness so desperately needed to hold back ADL’s onslaught? We must abandon ourselves to God and the whole truth, absolutely believing He will never leave or forsake those who put Him first.
We must eagerly and hungrily avail ourselves of sources of spiritual and political salt when God brings them to us. There is at least one notable "salt lick" now available to this planet: It's www.truthtellers.org.
please vote no on sb 2 and hb 2007
Maybe the churches have learned from previous experience, that those who do not go along with the gay community pay a price.
It's Okay to Discriminate Against Churches Now
By Friday morning the Salem Russian Community learned there is a price to pay if you even politely oppose the homosexual agenda. Two dozen beer bottles had been broken in their church parking lot. Rocks the size of baseballs were everywhere, and the signs they had used at the Hearing, neatly stacked in back of the church, were ripped, crumpled and rendered useless for any further use. So much for 'tolerance.'
While the message was certainly clear, the Russian Christians are already planning to turn out in greater numbers at Monday's rally. the question is, will the American church be there? Or have we learned nothing from our silence in Nazi Germany ... and now our friends whose memory is very clear? Our silence is no longer an option.
Kulongoski's 'Train to Moral Nowhere' In High Gear
"Rushing to Judgement" with all haste in order to pass the bill with his democrat majority before the Monday afternoon Rally opposing these two bills, House Speaker Jeff Merkley and Majority Leader Dave Hunt, both Portland democrats, are seeking to pull a 'fast one.'
While using Committee Administrators to mislead opponents of the bill, and noting attempts to schedule a rally in opposition before the vote on the House Floor, Merkley moved the time for the Vote from 'Mid week' to Monday at the 10AM Floor Session, just before the Noon Rally.
Their plan to further ignore and forestall the public's clear opposition to the approval of immoral behavior, is obvious.
Here a 'Right' There a 'Right', Everywhere a 'Special Right'
While our legislators are focused on protecting a minority whose behavior is more than morally suspect, maybe they should consider granting a special set of rights to protect those with traditional moral standards from those who reject them. Why not? It seems only fitting that if they are willing to grant rights to immoral behavior, they should be willing to grant rights to protect moral behavior.
what's the big deal if we discover our identities when we're 14 or 40?
we are who we are!
Post a Comment