Elections

[wkmac]

looking at the history of miscegenation laws in the united states (look at how late some states turned the corner on this , and heck it took a supreme court decision in 1967 to finally declare so called anti miscegenation laws unconstitutional whereas the supreme court a century earlier ruled them constitutional). The 1967 case was Loving vs Virginia and it is a ruling that many advocates of same sex marriages are attempting to use to legalize what they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In the 1920's, 38 states used marriage license laws to restrain whites from interacial marriage. The Wiki article on Marriage License is quite interesting.

 

[pickup]

In the 1920's, 38 states used marriage license laws to restrain whites from interacial marriage. The Wiki article on Marriage License is quite interesting.

oh look the level of discourse rose enough to attract wkmac's attention. We should feel honored!

 

[pickup]

In the 1920's, 38 states used marriage license laws to restrain whites from interacial marriage. The Wiki article on Marriage License is quite interesting.

Interesting , indeed!

 

[Jones]

I never said I was in favor of having multiple wives. What I AM saying is that there is only political motivation for trying to redefine marriage. There is only a motivation because some people want it changed to make it ok for same sex marriage. It has nothing to do with constitutional right. Marriage has been defined as the union of one man one woman for years and years; now all of a sudden it is wrong. If one man and one woman isnt good enough, then why is two people in general now the magic correct standard? If we have been wrong all along, why should marriage be limited? Why not make it legal for anyone wanting to marry for any reason?

I'm unclear on what your position is. In an earlier post you said you wanted the state completely out of the marriage business, which I agree with. But here it sounds like you want the state to continue to define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.

 

[tourists24]

I'm unclear on what your position is. In an earlier post you said you wanted the state completely out of the marriage business, which I agree with. But here it sounds like you want the state to continue to define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.

Actually, you are correct with the first part Jones. Anything past that is just absurdity showing absurdity. Guess I was trying to show the sheer politics of wanting to change what we now have. It's not about making it fair for all; just as long as homosexual couples can marry. If the government kept their noses out of it, then people could be with who they wanted to begin with. Gay church wants to hand out a union to a couple, that's their business. Straight church, same thing. I guess if you wanna marry Lassie you may need to get in touch with Cesar Millan....

 

[bbsam]

Actually, you are correct with the first part Jones. Anything past that is just absurdity showing absurdity. Guess I was trying to show the sheer politics of wanting to change what we now have. It's not about making it fair for all; just as long as homosexual couples can marry. If the government kept their noses out of it, then people could be with who they wanted to begin with. Gay church wants to hand out a union to a couple, that's their business. Straight church, same thing. I guess if you wanna marry Lassie you may need to get in touch with Cesar Millan....

And the state should recognize each equally.

 

[moreluck]

I thought marriage had something to do with procreation......Be fruitful & multiply.....remember? Adam & Eve??

 

[Babagounj]

I thought marriage had something to do with procreation......Be fruitful & multiply.....remember? Adam & Eve??

today the correct PC is Adam & Steve

 

[over9five]

today the correct PC is Adam & Steve

We all descended from Adam & Steve?? Now there's some magic.

 

[moreluck]

PC ?? Did I mention my PC filter fell off when I turned 60 ? It's very freeing.

 

[tourists24]

And the state should recognize each equally.

Actually, it should be none of the states' business at all

 

[tourists24]

We all descended from Adam & Steve?? Now there's some magic.

Kind of gives the term "stugged" a new meaning huh?

 

[bbsam]

Actually, it should be none of the states' business at all

That would be equally.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

That would be equally.

Not quite. To say that the state should recognize each equally implies that it should have a say in marriage in the first place. Tourists contends that it should be none of the states' business at all. I tend to agree with tourist.

They were discussing the economic boom same sex marriages would have on the economy this morning on CNN and how this, rather than the moral or philosophical issue(s), may play a role in the decision by the states whether to allow same sex marriages.

 

[bbsam]

I understand where the two of you are coming from and I agree. Mine was merely a point of semantics in that for the state to be neutral with respect to the union of two (or more) individuals would by definition be treating such unions equally.

 

[klein]

They were discussing the economic boom same sex marriages would have on the economy this morning on CNN and how this, rather than the moral or philosophical issue(s), may play a role in the decision by the states whether to allow same sex marriages.

Problem is, in reality the little guys vote never really counts.
It's big business that supports local and federal politicans that have the largest input and influence.
And in this case, do you think big business wants to pay health and other social bennies, or unions, (like pension after death), to gay partners ?

But, in the end the Supreme Court will make that final decision, and it's basically a no brainer there - Gay marriages won't be denied.
It was a big battle here up north, too. Got pretty nasty at times, as well. So much so, that the Premier of Alberta, (Ralph Klein back then), said he would refuse gay marriages no matter what the courts decide, and he will fight it all the way.
Which ofcourse didn't happen, because the Supreme Court rulings must be followed.

 

[moreluck]

Interesting...

I have often wondered why it is that the conservatives are
called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left.”

By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”

The Expanded New American Standard Version of the Bible in regards to the same verse says: "A wise man's heart directs him toward the right; but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left."

The foot note for this verse explains that the right is The place of protection & effectiveness for God's people, while the left is the place of ineffectiveness & without God's protection for the fool.

 

[Babagounj]

Facts Obama Doesn’t Want You to Connect

by Anita MonCrief

What really happened during the 2008 elections? Recent information regarding the primary caucuses paints the picture of a campaign that would stop at nothing to win. A campaign that was willing to strong arm candidates and volunteers in order to meet its goal. The documentary We Will Not Be Silenced delves into the Obama 2008 Campaign.

“We believe The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.”
​

 

[moreluck]

> 30 Senators voted both for Illegals to get SS and against ENGLISH as
our language, including both Senators from the following eleven states:
> CALIFORNIA
> CONNECTICUT
> HAWAII
> ILLINOIS
> MARYLAND
> MASSACHUSETTS
> NEW JERSEY
> NEW YORK
> VERMONT
> WASHINGTON
> WISCONSIN
>
>
> WHO VOTED "NO" TO MAKE ENGLISH OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE?
>
>
> It will soon be payback time for these traitors - forward this list
to everyone you know......
>
>
> Don’t forget. November 2 is “Take out the trash day”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The following senators voted against making English the official
language of America :
>
> Akaka (D-HI)
> Bayh (D-IN)
> Biden (D-DE)
> Bingaman (D-NM)
> Boxer (D-CA)
> Cantwell (D-WA)
> Clinton (D-NY)
> Dayton (D-MN)
> Dodd (D-CT)
> Domenici (R-NM)
> Durbin (D-IL)
> Feingold (D-WI)
> Feinstein (D-CA)
> Harkin (D-IA)
> Inouye (D-HI)
> Jeffords (I-VT)
> Kennedy (D-MA)
> Kerry (D-MA)
> Kohl (D-WI)
> Lautenberg (D-NJ)
> Leahy (D-VT)
> Levin (D-MI)
> Lieberman (D-CT)
> Menendez (D-NJ)
> Mikulski (D-MD)
> Murray (D-WA)
> Obama (D-IL)
> Reed (D-RI)
> Reid (D-NV)
> Salazar (D-CO)
> Sarbanes (D-MD)
> Schumer (D-NY)
> Stabenow (D-MI)
> Wyden (D-OR)
> Now, the following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens
Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is
not listed, there was no voting representative.
>
> Alaska : Stevens (R)
> Arizona : McCain (R)
> Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
> California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
> Colorado : Salazar (D)
> Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
> Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
> Florida : Martinez (R)
> Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
> Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
> Indiana: Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
> Iowa: Harkin (D)
> Kansas: Brownback (R)
> Louisiana: Landrieu (D)
Maryland: Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana: Baucus (D)
Nebraska: Hagel (R)
Nevada: Reid (D)
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico: Bingaman (D)
New York: Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (D)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)

THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO KNOW THIS
INFORMATION.....UNLESS THEY DON'T MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY
WITH FOREIGNERS WHO DIDN'T PAY A DIME INTO IT.....

 

[Lue C Fur]

Lots of scumbags on that list...hopefully every bit of garbage will be removed November 2nd and everything disenfected.