California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[sear]

inalienable-

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

Not bad.

Here's one I prefer:

unalienable (ùn-âl´ye-ne-bel, -â´lê-e-) adjective

Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Horrendus Formidonis]

The prospect of a "Mob-Rule" terrifies me.

Preacherman, your use of the slippery slope techniques is, as has been pointed out before, highly flawed. You claim that if we allow LGTB marriage, then it will quickly descend into a mad house. Just because we change laws regarding sexuality (That shouldn't exist in the first place, mind you.) We would have to deal with gay people "doing the deed" in the street.

Allow me, if you will, to counter your SS argument with my own. If we allow discrimination against LGTB individuals, then we will discriminate against inter-racial. From there, we slide to discriminating against other races, and then back to being sexist. Eventually, if we allow the government to regulate such personal details of our lives, we end up with a discriminating, totalitarian USA. Ruled by the church, everything in the bible is taken literally, and everyone is killed for sinning. The death of freedom. That is what the right wings want.

See? You make absurd, ridiculous claims about the left, and left counters with it's own absurd claims. (This is not my opinion. This is just an example.)

[preacherman76]

The prospect of a "Mob-Rule" terrifies me.

Preacherman, your use of the slippery slope techniques is, as has been pointed out before, highly flawed. You claim that if we allow LGTB marriage, then it will quickly descend into a mad house. Just because we change laws regarding sexuality (That shouldn't exist in the first place, mind you.) We would have to deal with gay people "doing the deed" in the street.

Allow me, if you will, to counter your SS argument with my own. If we allow discrimination against LGTB individuals, then we will discriminate against inter-racial. From there, we slide to discriminating against other races, and then back to being sexist. Eventually, if we allow the government to regulate such personal details of our lives, we end up with a discriminating, totalitarian USA. Ruled by the church, everything in the bible is taken literally, and everyone is killed for sinning. The death of freedom. That is what the right wings want.

See? You make absurd, ridiculous claims about the left, and left counters with it's own absurd claims. (This is not my opinion. This is just an example.)

But I dont think we should allow discrimination at all. If it were up to me states would have no say regarding this matter.

[preacherman76]

Perhaps it would be wise to save the word "unconstitutional" for things that actually violate something in the Constitution.

Yea, what would freedom of speech have to do with the constitution??

[Startraveler]

You're not arguing for free speech, you're arguing for an inalienable right to tax exempt status for organizations of your choice.

[ibelieveinaliens]

Another good joke...no wait I'm sure your serious...

Force? What is being forced on you here? Gay Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with you, it is about the marriage of homosexuals and has nothing to do with changing or altering the state of heterosexual marriage.

Left-Wing Morality? I do not believe equality is a 'left-wing'...I find it simply American.

And Americans are the worst type of people.

[eqgumby]

I see now that preacherman is against income tax, property tax, etc, and is one of these folks that believes they are unconstitutional. I've met these folks before. Add to that his belief that a "church" as an entity has the right to preach politics and mobilize politically and openly support a candidate or a political position.

There is a reason so many people are openly church/state separation, and that's because the founding fathers saw the dangers of any one church or particular religion having the most political power. Simply, once a "Church" has that much power, religion becomes the law of the land, and once religion becomes the law of the land, the Church becomes the law of the land, and once THAT happens...you are a religious based government no longer ruled law, but ruled by people that claim to have a direct pipeline to their deity, or are somehow more fit to translate ancient writings, people who are interested in furthering their religion over furthering their peoples happiness and well being, less concerned with life here on earth, and more concerned with life after death, as well as worried about their "flocks" loyalty and dedication to religion over their dedication to their country.

Any one who wants to live in a land that is ruled by a Church, has never LIVED in a land ruled by a Church.

[+DieChecker]

The very heart of Democracy and even Socialism, is representation and majority rule. The government is there to support the majority in safety, freedoms and justice. The government should not be there to promote thousands of special interest groups to the detriment of the majority. If people want laws changed, they should not pander to the Judiciary, they should inform the masses of voters to provide them the facts they need to make informed decisions. Forcing laws on people just makes the anger and bigotry worse. If the US is not ready for gay marriage, then it should not have gay marriage. Since states have the right to alter this somewhat, so they can independantly recognize gay marriage, then surely the result should be that those who want those laws should move. Just as a corporation or buisiness would move to recieve better treatment under various state laws. Or, those who want medical marijuana need to move to states that support that.

[sear]

Hello ibelieveinaliens. Welcome to @UM.

"And Americans are the worst type of people." ibelieveinaliens

America is not a nation.

America is a group of continents.

Last I checked, Vancouver, BC was in America.

But if you doubt that Americans (Canadians and U.S. citizens) are as worthy as any others, ask the Haitians now receiving not only U.S. government aid as commanded by our President.

Haitians are also getting widespread support from U.S. citizens, with a flood of charity that has reached over $100 $Million.

btw, Canada has pledged near $half a $Billion; very good for Haiti, and for Canada.

We've had our share of blunders. But it seems the lion's share of those are from incompetence rather than malice.

Thanks for joining us ibelieveinaliens.

Visit often. Post a lot.

[sear]

PS:

sear previously posted:

"... widespread support from U.S. citizens, with a flood of charity that has reached over $100 $Million." sear

source:

As of late Sunday, the organization had collected pledges of $103 million

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/us/19charity.html

That was Sunday.

I don't know what the figure is now, on Tuesday afternoon.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

The very heart of Democracy and even Socialism, is representation and majority rule. The government is there to support the majority in safety, freedoms and justice. The government should not be there to promote thousands of special interest groups to the detriment of the majority. If people want laws changed, they should not pander to the Judiciary, they should inform the masses of voters to provide them the facts they need to make informed decisions. Forcing laws on people just makes the anger and bigotry worse. If the US is not ready for gay marriage, then it should not have gay marriage. Since states have the right to alter this somewhat, so they can independantly recognize gay marriage, then surely the result should be that those who want those laws should move. Just as a corporation or buisiness would move to recieve better treatment under various state laws. Or, those who want medical marijuana need to move to states that support that.

I'm not sure if what I'm about to say is true, as I haven't read through the entire thread (I have ADD. . .) so, I'm just gonna throw that little information out there before I make my comment.

I believe the controversy stems from the question "Is it really fair for people to vote for a right?". If all people were created equal and deserve equal rights, then certainly that includes gay people. . .why should they have to depend on a vote for something as basic as marriage?

I don't really equate gay men and women with special interest groups. . .That's more of a line for PETA and such. Gay men and women HAVE special interest groups, but that's a little different from what I think you were insinuating. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

And, if you don't want to force laws on people. . .what about forcing laws on the gay community? That's not very fair. They are people that are living in a country that touts the equality of its citizens. Denying them marriage is making us a bunch of hypocrites. I can't see what laws they are forcing on us, either. The law in California was against them. If anything, they are trying to fight laws that keep them from living their lives like the rest of us do. I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone told me I couldn't get married, I imagine I'd try to fight it as well.

[+DieChecker]

So, the State of California had a vote and Gay Marriage was defeated, right? So why is there a lawsuit? Because some people do not like the way the vote went, right? So, they are trying to get a court, a single judge, one man (or woman), to change it so that the law that millions voted for will be thrown out.

Instead of this law being based on the morals and convictions of millions, it will be based on the convictions of one man, a judge.

Should the votes of those millions be worth nothing, because a judge has a countering opinion?

I also do not see marriage as a Right. It is a perk given by the government in recognition of people who are living together and raising kids.

Gay couples already can have the same rights, all they have to do is go to a lawyer and judge and have it put on paper. Maybe that is not so in all places however. But the point being that this is not even about Rights, but about the word "Marriage". If gay activists focused on Rights instead of Marriage, they would have national recognition by now.

[Horrendus Formidonis]

Because, the man who filed the lawsuit thought it wasn't fair that people who didn't even know him got to take away his ability to marry his boyfriend.

No, they really don't. Sure, some states give gay couples the ability to enter a union "Similar to marriage", but not California. California doesn't even give them that option.

[sear]

"So, the State of California had a vote and Gay Marriage was defeated, right? So why is there a lawsuit? Because some people do not like the way the vote went, right? So, they are trying to get a court, a single judge, one man (or woman), to change it so that the law that millions voted for will be thrown out." DC

Excellent question!

"A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

The answer to your prudent question DC is:

The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

The U.S. Founders called democracy "mob rule", and for good reason.

In a democracy, majority wish is the law of the land.

But in our Republic, our laws are based upon principles.

And among those, is the concept of unalienable rights.

unalienable (ùn-âl´ye-ne-bel, -â´lê-e-) adjective

Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

We can't cede unalienable rights, even if plebiscite approves it.

Very well done DC!

Instead of asserting an absurdity, you asked a cogent question.

I hope my meager answer was sufficient.

[+DieChecker]

We can't cede unalienable rights, even if plebiscite approves it.

Very well done DC!

Instead of asserting an absurdity, you asked a cogent question.

I hope my meager answer was sufficient.

I do like to try to be logcal, even when defending a very minor point.

Then... who gets to decide what is an unalienable right? The Judiciary Branch using the Constitution? Because if so, then California's Constitution is clear that it is between a man and a woman. If not the state constitution, then the Federal Constitution? I don't remember anything at all about marriage in there.

It can be argued to be part of "Life, Liberty and Happyness", I suppose.

If no the Judiciary, then who?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Sear, get a grip. "America" is a nickname for the United States of America. There is no continent called America. There is the North American continent, and the South American continent.

[sear]

"Then... who gets to decide what is an unalienable right?" DC

Thomas Jefferson and a bunch of other blokes you've probably never hear of.

If you want the list, just read the signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

"The Judiciary Branch using the Constitution?" DC

Yes.

The judicial branch is the final arbiter.

"Because if so, then California's Constitution is clear that it is between a man and a woman. If not the state constitution, then the Federal Constitution?" DC

Right.

Art.6 Sect.2 is the section that clarifies that point. It's sometimes referred to as "the supremacy clause".

ARTICLE 6.

2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"Sear, get a grip." PI

Thanks.

I've already got three. A left, and a right.

""America" is a nickname for the United States of America." PI

Right.

Thus my clarifying the misnomer.

"There is no continent called America." PI

Right.

Thus my explicit assertion:

"America is not a nation.

America is a group of continents." sear

Thank you for accurately deducing reality, simply by interpreting the literal meaning of my posted words.

"There is the North American continent, and the South American continent." PI

"America is not a nation.

America is a group of continents." sear

Is there an echo in here?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

They're called "the Americas", not "America." "America" (note there is no S in the end) refers to the United States of America.

I love how some people's hatred of America is so strong they can't even admit its name.

[preacherman76]

You're not arguing for free speech, you're arguing for an inalienable right to tax exempt status for organizations of your choice.

Im arguing for tax exempt status for everyone.Which is also constitutional.

Edited January 20, 2010 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

I see now that preacherman is against income tax, property tax, etc, and is one of these folks that believes they are unconstitutional. I've met these folks before. Add to that his belief that a "church" as an entity has the right to preach politics and mobilize politically and openly support a candidate or a political position.

There is a reason so many people are openly church/state separation, and that's because the founding fathers saw the dangers of any one church or particular religion having the most political power. Simply, once a "Church" has that much power, religion becomes the law of the land, and once religion becomes the law of the land, the Church becomes the law of the land, and once THAT happens...you are a religious based government no longer ruled law, but ruled by people that claim to have a direct pipeline to their deity, or are somehow more fit to translate ancient writings, people who are interested in furthering their religion over furthering their peoples happiness and well being, less concerned with life here on earth, and more concerned with life after death, as well as worried about their "flocks" loyalty and dedication to religion over their dedication to their country.

Any one who wants to live in a land that is ruled by a Church, has never LIVED in a land ruled by a Church.

LOL, where the hell did you get that from? I dont want to give the church political power. Just the freedom to speak. Like the constitution grants every American. Its tyranny to accept any less.

And the income and property tax IS unconstitutional. Its not that I believe its unconsttitutional, it just plainly IS.

Ive met folks like you before as well. You have no understanding of the basic foundations of freedom. Nor do you understand the principles the founding Fathers layed out in the documents that secured our freedoms. Then your probably like most people, and have never even bothered to read any of said documents. You like most sheep, accept the status quo, not even knowing or understanding why your NOT free.

[preacherman76]

The very heart of Democracy and even Socialism, is representation and majority rule. The government is there to support the majority in safety, freedoms and justice. The government should not be there to promote thousands of special interest groups to the detriment of the majority. If people want laws changed, they should not pander to the Judiciary, they should inform the masses of voters to provide them the facts they need to make informed decisions. Forcing laws on people just makes the anger and bigotry worse. If the US is not ready for gay marriage, then it should not have gay marriage. Since states have the right to alter this somewhat, so they can independantly recognize gay marriage, then surely the result should be that those who want those laws should move. Just as a corporation or buisiness would move to recieve better treatment under various state laws. Or, those who want medical marijuana need to move to states that support that.

AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

[Cadetak]

AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

Generally speaking, would I be wrong in saying that America is a democratic republic in which officials are elected by the people's vote to uphold the constitution/law and promote the general welfare of the people?

[Cadetak]

They're called "the Americas", not "America." "America" (note there is no S in the end) refers to the United States of America.

I love how some people's hatred of America is so strong they can't even admit its name.

I honestly believe it is just nitpicking.

I think most everybody in the world would equate America to the United States just as they would equate the word American to a citizen of the United States and not a denizen of North/South America.

We can't very well call ourselves United Statians or United Staters because that would be silly so we call ourselves Americans...America being the root word there. Its not like there is any confusion as a person from Canada refers to themselves as Canadian and never American...and if there was any reason whatsoever to refer to your continent of origin you would say North America or North American.

Really has any Canadian or Mexican referred to themselves as American? And has any European or Australian here ever equated America/American to anything but the United States?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I honestly believe it is just nitpicking.

I think most everybody in the world would equate America to the United States just as they would equate the word American to a citizen of the United States and not a denizen of North/South America.

We can't very well call ourselves United Statians or United Staters because that would be silly so we call ourselves Americans...America being the root word there. Its not like there is any confusion as a person from Canada refers to themselves as Canadian and never American...and if there was any reason whatsoever to refer to your continent of origin you would say North America or North American.

Really has any Canadian or Mexican referred to themselves as American? And has any European or Australian here ever equated America/American to anything but the United States?

Exactly. It's nothing but a childish, desperate attempt to attack America.

[preacherman76]

Generally speaking, would I be wrong in saying that America is a democratic republic in which officials are elected by the people's vote to uphold the constitution/law and promote the general welfare of the people?

You would not be wrong. Being that we are a democratic republic though, means that rights should never be put to vote. They just are.