CA Gay Marriage...VOIDED!

[Ken King]

Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by Hessian
for a while.

We have our amazing checks and balances (unless activist judges keep pushing their own version of legislation)

Unless?

We have our electoral college (untill a huge block of voters who don't understand why it is there dump it)

Until?

We have our "Free Press" (which is 90% liberal & skews everything)

A statistic or presumption?

We have our freedom of religion (until the Govt does not like the anti-abortion or Anti gay stand..then they remove tax exempt status and issue politically correct issues to be avoided)

Another until?

We have our guns (except in some states it is getting difficult and the probing ATF agents in all 50)

I haven't experienced a problem obtaining a firearm. The laws should keep them out of the hands of some, shouldn't they?

We have our Supreme court (appointed after numerous anal exams and senators deal-making)..laws only take 2 + years to overturn.-FDR knew this and used it with the WPA, & AAA+

Can't overturn a law until it is challenged, which usually takes that much time to make it to the SCOTUS.

Ken...you know there was a "Balance of Power" in Rome until it wobbled into dictactorship under Julius. We are wobbling...still believing that the machinery is working fine. It isn't.

I think it is still working better then anything else out there (past or present). I just don’t have the phobias that you do. I think we are resilient, adaptable, and able to overcome many a challenge. It is a pity that you think so little of the capabilities of our great nation and our people. I find it truly sad that you are in a position as a teacher to influence impressionable young minds with your unfounded fears.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by Ken King

I think it is still working better then anything else out there (past or present). I just don’t have the phobias that you do. I think we are resilient, adaptable, and able to overcome many a challenge. It is a pity that you think so little of the capabilities of our great nation and our people. I find it truly sad that you are in a position as a teacher to influence impressionable young minds with your unfounded fears.

Ken, I don't for one, doubt our resiliency as a nation, or our ability to adapt and overcome challenges.

But, seriously haven't you ever read a paper, or seen a news article and wondered - what the heck were these people thinking, what tree did they just fall out of? Stupid stuff you and I would never attempt.

Common sense seems to be dying out there; it seems like the prevailing thinking is an extension of "If it feels good, do it!", and screw what anybody else thinks of it.

Heck, you can always offer up an opposing view as to why
" it " should be allowed, just as are there many moral or ethical tenets that suggest "it" is harmful in the long term.

 

[Hessian]

Like Washington, Lincoln, Adams, and Hamilton... I believe in providence. God's timing, choosing, and protection is supreme.
Democracy will fail if the people lose their faith and morality (Adams)
Mason pointed out numerous flaws in the constitution to GW and some have come true (Clinton's pardons for example)

Do we have potential? Absolutely.
Can we return to our constitutional roots: No.
Can we adapt to future crisis'? Perhaps.

Can we continue to ignore God's laws, distract our churches, and merely scowl at moral decline..yes, but it won't last long.

What makes America Good? Its the unshakable faith of its people, America will cease being good if it's faith fails. (Paraphrased Alexis De Tocqueville) (sorry, no spell check)

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by penncam
But, seriously haven't you ever read a paper, or seen a news article and wondered - what the heck were these people thinking, what tree did they just fall out of? Stupid stuff you and I would never attempt.

Sure I have, but are laws needed for every stupid act?

Common sense seems to be dying out there; it seems like the prevailing thinking is an extension of "If it feels good, do it!", and screw what anybody else thinks of it.

Common sense certainly is dying, but I don’t know if it was really all that common a thing to begin with. You would think in a nation built with freedom and equality in mind that this would be a no-brainer. We might not agree with it or understand why it is being done or like it, but if it isn’t harming others then why should it be denied without any factual data showing harm does exist? I will ask again for the umpteenth time, what is the compelling government interest in denying same-sex couples the right to legally join together as if married?

Heck, you can always offer up an opposing view as to why " it " should be allowed, just as are there many moral or ethical tenets that suggest "it" is harmful in the long term.

But there hasn’t been a single compelling reason offered by you or anyone else as to the harm it will cause. You can suggest, speculate, and conger up all sorts of possibilities and what-ifs, but where are the facts?

 

[ylexot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by Ken King
I will ask again for the umpteenth time, what is the compelling government interest in denying same-sex couples the right to legally join together as if married?

Well, there is a financial aspect to it, but I rarely see that brought up. I also don't know how significant of a financial difference it would make.

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by ylexot
Well, there is a financial aspect to it, but I rarely see that brought up. I also don't know how significant of a financial difference it would make.

I have seen claims where it will ruin health insurance, be a burden to the rest of us, but I haven't seen factual data supporting the claims.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by Ken King
But there hasn’t been a single compelling reason offered by you or anyone else as to the harm it will cause. You can suggest, speculate, and conger up all sorts of possibilities and what-ifs, but where are the facts?

I believe I've replied to you in a thread in the last 10 days, or so, that I don't see a need for federal intervention in this matter. The States should be more than able to make the decision stand - up or down.

Now let me put it to you:

I see three arguements for same-sex unions:

(1) Stability for these couples who have made a commitment.

(2) Legal rights for spouses of these same people, in the case of next of kin, estate wills, and critical life-making decisions.

(3) Acknowledgement in society of their status(es).

So, you've been harping on this with the full weight of civil rights and equal protection under the law.

Now you tell me what long term benefits same-sex unions will have for our country, for our societyand the world;
outside of the ones I've listed.

I'd like you to post studies, investigations, findings that conclusively point to the GOOD these unions will do for us.

While you're at it, try to find an idea, a germ in your own mind - of a downside to this issue.

Because up to now, it seems from your point of view, there are no minuses to it. It's ALL GOOD.

In my 50+ years of living, everything has its good and bad consequences, but I don't recall any of you pro-same sex union adherents giving us a possibly negative aspect. Not one.

None at all?

 

[sleuth]

Re: Re: Good point.

Originally posted by ylexot
Good point to you too. Personally, I think the government should eliminate "marriages" completely. Marriages should be the domain of religious institutions who can define it any way they want. I don't even think the government should have "civil unions". If all they want is property rights, etc...a lawyer can do that.

I've been saying that forever, except I don't mind the government having federally recognized "civil unions" for tax purposes.

Of course, if they'd overhaul the tax code then I might be against that too.

 

[Hessian]

Back in May I posted this site:
http://www.homosexuellt.com/infosid...le.asp?Idnr=207

Listing the health care risks associated with the gay lifestyle.
That is a highh cost we will all pay with higher premiums if we endorse this way of life.

**Heck...I can't read Swedish and can't find the translation...let me look for the English version....

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by penncam
I believe I've replied to you in a thread in the last 10 days, or so, that I don't see a need for federal intervention in this matter. The States should be more than able to make the decision stand - up or down.

Should same-sex marriages established in one state be recognized and accepted by all states?

Now let me put it to you:

I see three arguements for same-sex unions:

(1) Stability for these couples who have made a commitment.

(2) Legal rights for spouses of these same people, in the case of next of kin, estate wills, and critical life-making decisions.

(3) Acknowledgement in society of their status(es).

So, you've been harping on this with the full weight of civil rights and equal protection under the law.

Now you tell me what long term benefits same-sex unions will have for our country, for our societyand the world;
outside of the ones I've listed.

Being treated equally is one you left out, having due process under our laws is another you missed, and being able to enjoy and share in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the rest of us claim is inherently our God given right.

I'd like you to post studies, investigations, findings that conclusively point to the GOOD these unions will do for us.

Have there been any studies? I don’t think so, but shouldn’t all law-abiding citizens be treated equally and in accordance with the law? Isn’t that a GOOD thing?

While you're at it, try to find an idea, a germ in your own mind - of a downside to this issue.

Because up to now, it seems from your point of view, there are no minuses to it. It's ALL GOOD.

In my 50+ years of living, everything has its good and bad consequences, but I don't recall any of you pro-same sex union adherents giving us a possibly negative aspect. Not one.

None at all?

I don’t see a downside in an issue concerning equal treatment. I think that same-sex couples should enjoy the same freedoms and benefits as heterosexual couples. I think they should be hit with a marriage penalty at tax time or deal with divorce court and the division of property when they dissolve their union like the rest of us. For me equal is GOOD.

In your 50+ years of living you have shaped many phobias about what might or could happen and they seem to be based on your religious beliefs. Which is fine, but this isn’t about religion. It’s about freedom and being treated equally under our laws. I know it’s a unique concept to those like you that want to control or ban the things they don’t like, the things that scare them, or that they don’t understand. It’s easier to sit back and make wild unproven claims then to simply admit that if we are a free nation there are things that will be allowed that I won’t like and learn to accept that.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Hessian
Back in May I posted this site:
http://www.homosexuellt.com/infosid...le.asp?Idnr=207

Listing the health care risks associated with the gay lifestyle.
That is a highh cost we will all pay with higher premiums if we endorse this way of life.

**Heck...I can't read Swedish and can't find the translation...let me look for the English version....

Will these costs be the same as what we experience currently without same-sex marriages or will they grow drastically if same-sex marriages are allowed?

Seems that by endorsing stable relationships the disease issue you speak of could actually be reduced resulting in less of a burden.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Hessian
"my image of God ..."

That is the root of the problem isn't it?
Reject the images of God when he destroys, punishes, drives out,
Reject the idea that a Holy God has more important things on his mind than how we "feel."
Sure, teach the girls that there is right, there is wrong...and there is an enormous gray zone where you do what you "feel."

God in Heaven is not impressed.

Hessian, if I vented my full rage at you I would be banned.

Instead, I'll repeat Vrai's assertion that it's the ultimate arrogance to suggest that one knows what God wants. I don't have to justify myself or my beliefs to you.

 

[Hessian]

How would your image of God "Feel" if you released all those kind & warm thoughts?

I guess your self control is keeping your real feelings in check.
Well done Tonio...well done.
You get bonus points.

 

[Hessian]

Ken..

It might do as you say...
If legal commitments are made, then the wandering multiple partners MAY be reduced, thus reducing the associted diseases.
BUT: If the view of "Marriage" is actually just to pacify the state, get medical benefits, etc and the sexual wandering keeps going...it will have no affect at all.

Lawyers will be happy with more divorces to settle

 

[BuddyLee]

Re: Ken..

Originally posted by Hessian
Lawyers will be happy with more divorces to settle

A lot of other money is out there to be made. More spending! Not only more money for lawyers but everything you can think of for a wedding. The list can certainly continue. If you are a couple you are probably going to be more prone to spending more because you are more financially stable. In that more houses, cars, and other such expensive materials will be bought.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by Ken King
Should same-sex marriages established in one state be recognized and accepted by all states?

Did I miss something, or isn't that an issue the states are suppose to decide?


Have there been any studies? I don’t think so, but shouldn’t all law-abiding citizens be treated equally and in accordance with the law? Isn’t that a GOOD thing?


The problem here is these "Law Abiding Citizens" aren't waiting for their "turn", so to speak, now are they? The state law says a marriage is between a man and a woman, but it doesn't stop the local mayor or clerk in breaking the law, alter a marriage form for these people does it?

I give you California and New York, for example.



In your 50+ years of living you have shaped many phobias about what might or could happen and they seem to be based on your religious beliefs. Which is fine, but this isn’t about religion. It’s about freedom and being treated equally under our laws. I know it’s a unique concept to those like you that want to control or ban the things they don’t like, the things that scare them, or that they don’t understand. It’s easier to sit back and make wild unproven claims then to simply admit that if we are a free nation there are things that will be allowed that I won’t like and learn to accept that.

I know this may be a new concept to you my friend, but you know nothing of what goes on inside my head, just like I don't really know what goes on inside yours.

 

[Ken King]

Re: Ken..

Originally posted by Hessian
It might do as you say...
If legal commitments are made, then the wandering multiple partners MAY be reduced, thus reducing the associted diseases.
BUT: If the view of "Marriage" is actually just to pacify the state, get medical benefits, etc and the sexual wandering keeps going...it will have no affect at all.

Lawyers will be happy with more divorces to settle

That's it exactly, we don't know if it would be worse, the same, or better and that is why I don't see the health cost debate as a viable issue.

I really don't think it is for the state that most of these people want to get married. For some it might be about benefits, but I think that for the majority it is about their desire to legally become as one.

I am sure some will continue a life that includes other partners, just as traditional marriages experience nowadays, but I wouldn't dare try to estimate a percentage that would do that, it is simply an unknown.

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by penncam
Did I miss something, or isn't that an issue the states are suppose to decide?

Well the Defense of Marriage Act says the states do not have to accept same-sex marriages legally entered into in other states. Unlike other laws such as the common-law marriage where states are bound to give them equal weight even if not allowed to be entered into in that state.

The problem here is these "Law Abiding Citizens" aren't waiting for their "turn", so to speak, now are they? The state law says a marriage is between a man and a woman, but it doesn't stop the local mayor or clerk in breaking the law, alter a marriage form for these people does it?

I give you California and New York, for example.

And as discussed elsewhere I said that those contrary to the state laws should be overturned.

I know this may be a new concept to you my friend, but you know nothing of what goes on inside my head, just like I don't really know what goes on inside yours.

I read what you post and it certainly gives indications that what I observe is pretty much dead on target, at least on this issue.

 

[ylexot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by Ken King
Being treated equally is one you left out, having due process under our laws is another you missed, and being able to enjoy and share in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the rest of us claim is inherently our God given right.

"No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law." Due process has nothing to do with gay marriage. Due process deals with imprisonment.

Having a marriage license or not having one also has no effect on one's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The best argument presented there is "being treated equally". However, if marriage is defined as being between a man and woman, it can be argued that gays are treated equally because they are still allowed to get married...just not to someone of the same sex. If marriage is defined as between two committed adults, then disallowing gay marriage would not be equitable.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ken...the machinery still works...

Originally posted by ylexot
"No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law." Due process has nothing to do with gay marriage. Due process deals with imprisonment.

Having a marriage license or not having one also has no effect on one's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The best argument presented there is "being treated equally". However, if marriage is defined as being between a man and woman, it can be argued that gays are treated equally because they are still allowed to get married...just not to someone of the same sex. If marriage is defined as between two committed adults, then disallowing gay marriage would not be equitable.

Hmmm, I'm not too sure about the first 2 points, since I'm not a lawyer, attorney, whatever, but I imagine Ken is poring over his websites to prove or disprove them.

Point #3 is very interesting, indeed whereas if it can legally be argued that they are, in fact, being treated equally then that would deal a serious blow to same-sex marriages causes.


I wonder if any state has that series of words in their constitution, or whichever document which defines what constitutes a legal marriage?

I can't believe I haven't heard that arguement before?