Mayor of Boston to Chick-Fil-A: Get Lost!!!!

page: 24
30
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Annee
 


The Human Rights Campaign is deeply entrenched in the licensing of marriage. The legal definition of license is the grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Marriage is a fundamental unalienable right and requires no permission from the state. Instead of actually fighting for equal rights, which are unalienable rights, the gay community has shamefully conspired with other groups to ensure that term "equal rights" be conflated with government granted legal rights, and this "Human Rights Campaign" has no regard for unalienable rights.

Everyone has unalienable rights. No government can grant these unalienable rights as everyone has them from birth. Legal rights, demonstrably, are not equal.



edit on 6-8-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


America began issuing marriage licenses in the mid-1800's in order to make interracial marriage illegal. Why did they do this? Because of prejudice against blacks - no other reason. This worked for quite a while, until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, as race became a protected class, mandated by the federal government. Now, interracial marriages cannot be banned, AND they must have all the same legal rights and entitlements as other legal marriages.

States who refuse to issue a marriage license to two gays are doing so for one reason only - prejudice against gays. Gays are not considered a protected class at this time, so states are getting away with it. If the Supreme Court decides to rule on the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban, they must look at the intent. Why is a state banning legal gay marriage? It is obvious the intent is to exercise prejudice against gays - there is no other reason. Prejudice against a group simply for being that group is discrimination, and is unconstitutional - period.

Once sexual orientation becomes federally mandated as a protected class (like religion, race, gender), their legal rights cannot be denied. All it takes is for the Supreme Court to rule on it, and it will happen. It's only a matter of time.




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


What you are talking about are Miscegenation laws. The licensing schemes that sprang from these "laws" only underscore my point about the difference between legal rights and unalienable rights:


When it comes to marriage in the United States of America, there are procedures and standards for marriage that one must follow, in which one of those procedures is to acquire a marriage license. Many people go about following the steps outlined for marriage according to the State, without ever knowing the reasoning or history or legal aspect of what they are doing. The word license is derived from the Latin word Licentious, which means lacking restraint, ignoring societal standards, disregard for accepted rules. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - the permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Now in other words, this means the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal, so they can then tell you that if you pay the government money (which is a bribe), then they will turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do! So the question that people need to ask themselves, is why would it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? This question is rarely brought up or addressed because people have grown so custom, to following the laws and statutes and commandments of man, rather than those of the Most High. Let's examine the history of marriage license in America, and see how it came about, why it came about, and why the government and states enforce this system of enslavement upon the people.


Does the gay movement crave marriage licenses because they instinctively believe what they are doing is licentious? Do heterosexuals crave marriage licenses for the same reason? Do you understand that the heart of your argument is that it was just to have anti-miscegenation laws because this allowed the Supreme Court to make a class of people a suspect class?

Do you support the contention that slaves and by extension their ancestors are only two-thirds of a person? Legally and by Constitution no less this is the case. Their unalienable rights were disregarded because they were legally declared two-thirds of a person. Of course, only implicitly so, because had the Founders explicitly named slaves or Black people two-third the Thirteenth Amendment would have been easily challenged as unconstitutional. What I don't understand is why you would justify the miscegenation laws in order to justify the current push for legitimization of a dubious licensing scheme.

If it is just about filing privileges and other benefits, it would be far easier to lobby Congress on a federal level than to go state by state attempting to force states to acquiesce to adding the gay community to their dubious licensing schemes. Congress has all ready written several acts of legislation compelling industry to do things they weren't all ready doing, and in terms of filing privileges Congress controls the IRS.

Why legitimize a licensing scheme whose etyomolgy declares such a thing as being "morally unrestrained". Do you not see the problem with this?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


What you are talking about are Miscegenation laws. The licensing schemes that sprang from these "laws" only underscore my point about the difference between legal rights and unalienable rights:


When it comes to marriage in the United States of America, there are procedures and standards for marriage that one must follow, in which one of those procedures is to acquire a marriage license. Many people go about following the steps outlined for marriage according to the State, without ever knowing the reasoning or history or legal aspect of what they are doing. The word license is derived from the Latin word Licentious, which means lacking restraint, ignoring societal standards, disregard for accepted rules. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - the permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Now in other words, this means the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal, so they can then tell you that if you pay the government money (which is a bribe), then they will turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do! So the question that people need to ask themselves, is why would it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? This question is rarely brought up or addressed because people have grown so custom, to following the laws and statutes and commandments of man, rather than those of the Most High. Let's examine the history of marriage license in America, and see how it came about, why it came about, and why the government and states enforce this system of enslavement upon the people.


Does the gay movement crave marriage licenses because they instinctively believe what they are doing is licentious? Do heterosexuals crave marriage licenses for the same reason? Do you understand that the heart of your argument is that it was just to have anti-miscegenation laws because this allowed the Supreme Court to make a class of people a suspect class?

Do you support the contention that slaves and by extension their ancestors are only two-thirds of a person? Legally and by Constitution no less this is the case. Their unalienable rights were disregarded because they were legally declared two-thirds of a person. Of course, only implicitly so, because had the Founders explicitly named slaves or Black people two-third the Thirteenth Amendment would have been easily challenged as unconstitutional. What I don't understand is why you would justify the miscegenation laws in order to justify the current push for legitimization of a dubious licensing scheme.

If it is just about filing privileges and other benefits, it would be far easier to lobby Congress on a federal level than to go state by state attempting to force states to acquiesce to adding the gay community to their dubious licensing schemes. Congress has all ready written several acts of legislation compelling industry to do things they weren't all ready doing, and in terms of filing privileges Congress controls the IRS.

Why legitimize a licensing scheme whose etyomolgy declares such a thing as being "morally unrestrained". Do you not see the problem with this?



So, you are against marriage licenses in general, yes? That's fine, but right now, people who get a marriage license enjoy tax benefits and other entitlements. You may think that this is wrong - that the state shouldn't hold that over couples' heads in order to "force" or "entice" them to get a marriage license. Great, but the solution is NOT to withhold marriage licenses from gays. Let them have their licenses and the benefits associated with them. We can then work on eliminating marriage licenses altogether, but in the meantime, gays won't suffer from lack of benefits that everyone else gets from marriage licenses.

And, if lobbying Congress for filing privileges and other benefits were that easy, it would have been done already, as a first step towards equal rights. It's not that easy. Gay lobbyists have been trying to get Congress to ban workplace discrimination against sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc., and it's been a real struggle.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I am against any licensing scheme for rights. If it is a right there is no need for any license. This argument of right now is disingenuous. Right now every state in the nation recognizes unalienable rights, that you ans so many so recklessly disregard. Conversely right now very few states allow licenses for gay marriage, but you and others, without a hint of irony, want to dismiss unalienable rights and use right now to dismiss it and inexplicably ignore right now in regards to your own agenda. Sigh.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



I see two major paths to this goal. My second new opinion, is that the movement has taken the wrong one. As Spiramirabilis writes, there is no room for compromise. This is not bad as a battle cry. And as a battle is how gays see it.


I like that you can have new opinions Charles - I've always considered being able to change our positions (when it makes sense) very admirable

I wish I could change my mind sometimes - and then...sometimes I do

But not this time. Please - allow me to explain why

This is about equality - and freedom - for all of us

For all of us

Anything less than the same for everyone isn't really freedom and is definitely not equality

Compromising isn't possible - it could only amount to separate but equal in the end

This is about acceptance - but we are not children here. Not you and I - not any of us. We know there will never be acceptance - not genuine, total and complete acceptance. But - the laws can establish a kind of equality that isn't possible otherwise

Now, to be sure - there are many who'll say - so what? Why do things have to be equal?

What can I say? :-)

They just do

I don't expect everyone to be happy about it - just as everyone isn't happy about a lot of minorities being protected under the law...

Them's the breaks

Marriage isn't going away - and it isn't becoming meaningless

I know you don't see it this way - and maybe you never will - but marriage is about to become more meaningful that it ever was before

good for us
edit on 8/6/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/6/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


you're like a Constitutional Ralph Nader Jean Paul

:-)

kinda


I am against any licensing scheme for rights. If it is a right there is no need for any license. This argument of right now is disingenuous. Right now every state in the nation recognizes unalienable rights, that you ans so many so recklessly disregard. Conversely right now very few states allow licenses for gay marriage, but you and others, without a hint of irony, want to dismiss unalienable rights and use right now to dismiss it and inexplicably ignore right now in regards to your own agenda. Sigh.


Right now - a hospital (among other things) won't grant a gay couple the same privileges as it grants married couples. That marriage license may be stupid and wrong and unnecessary - in an alternate inalienable rights universe

But here in this universe - right now - turns out it's necessary

Now, don't think for a moment I don't agree with you - in the big picture

And god - how I do love the big picture - all shiny and glowy - and right. Sounds like heaven...

But which is going to come first? Inalienable rights marriages that are recognized by the institutions that exist right now - or...

You talkin' smack Jean Paul - or are you talkin' revolution?

:-)

just curious



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





You talkin' smack Jean Paul - or are you talkin' revolution?


I hope you know well enough to know what kind of revolution I advocate. There is no need for violent revolutions. Peaceful "velvet" revolutions will do. This gay marriage issue, as it is being fought, means a state by state uphill all the way legal battle. Hospitals denying "privileges", and by this I am presuming you mean the right to visit a husband or wife in the hospital because of a lack of license to marry is the perfect legal battle for this velvet revolution I speak of.

Those that think they have a better shot with the Supreme Court demanding that court shove civil rights down the throats of states who will be asserting states rights of the Tenth Amendment all the way just don't understand law, or the Court as it is right now. However, take one man, or couple who've declared themselves married but were denied the right to visit their beloved in a hospital and take that all the way to the Supreme Court and now these Justices do not have to shove civil rights down states throats and all they have to do is uphold the Ninth Amendment and the unalienable right to contract and to marry. That's it.

That's a revolution I can get behind. Right now we have a gay movement and civil rights advocates who want to piss all over unalienable rights and make that sacrifice for the gamble they can force an agenda on people. One strategy is simple and rooted in Constitutional principles of unalienable rights. The other may or may not be Constitutional depending on the Justices and which they favor more, the Tenth Amendment and states rights, or civil rights. The SCOTUS has gone the way of civil rights in the past, but this is right now.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




I hope you know well enough to know what kind of revolution I advocate.


I sure do - you ain't gonna get very far with that water pistol you're packing in any other kind of revolution

now, how come you couldn't have just said all that earlier on?

nice... :-)

I'm getting out of this thread on a high note - before the rabble shows up



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





now, how come you couldn't have just said all that earlier on?


Velvet revolutions are more than just a melody, they require harmony. It took your voice to compliment mine to get us to that note.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You're confusing me somewhat. What is your position on homosexual marriage and other legal abilities?

Here's what I mean by legal abilities. A hospital would recognize the liberties of a married couple if a man and a woman. That is to say, a spouse would be able to make a medical decision if the patient developed medical complications.

A same gender couple does not get that ability in many hospitals across the nation.

do you support that kind of decision?

edit on 6-8-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


I support freedom. Plain and simple. I support unalienable rights and these are genuine real deal equal rights, which means everyone has them. Who am I, who are you, to determine whether gay people can marry? It is not our business and their marriage causes no harm in the general sense of marriage.

What causes no harm is done by right. Denial of such a right is criminal.

The licensing scheme is what is criminal. The state has no right to impose such a scheme on the unalienable right of marriage.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

I don't believe you've ever had the opportunity to take apart one of my analyses, but I'd be grateful if you did it now. What I am suggesting here is not my final or fixed belief, but merely a trial balloon to see where the leaks are. With your reputation as a leak spotter, I thought I'd let you have a go at it. With any luck I'll end up with clearer thoughts on the whole issue.

1) The issue is gay marriage.
1a) That can't be right. Posters here have pointed out that marriage existed before Christianity, and before government. So, if mrriage needs neither religion or government, but only the two people, go do it, nothing's stopping you. Whatever they did umpty bazillion years ago, you can do now.
1b) As far back as the '60s gays were being married in church ceremonies. Today, every city has at least one church in which gays can get married. Gay marriage is easy.

2) OK, the issue isn't gay marriage, it's state recognition of the marriage.
2a) No, that's wrong, too. The mere fact, standing in isolation, that the state recognizes the marriage is nearly entirely irrelevant. The state never sends out "Happy Anniversary" cards.

3) All right, what is the issue?
3a) The issue is, that the state has decided to give out certain benefits and priveleges to people it recognizes as married, and currently gays don't get them. These benefits were created entirely by the state and can be (and have been) changed by the state. They are discretionary with the state, there is no requirement that they be granted, all of the "marriage" benefits could be removed by legislation or executive order. In short, these benefits aren't "rights" for anyone.

4) So what do you conclude?
4a) Well, a question first. If the movement is asking for benefits (3a), may the state ask: "Why? What benefit to the state is there for giving a cohabiting gay couple a marriage license? What does that change to the state's benefit?" There doesn't appear to be any answer to that question. I've heard "We could adopt children," but there's already a waiting line of years for parents who want to adopt. More might be nice, but hardly necessary. (Yes, you can ask the same question of straight marriages, but apparently the state has already answered that to their satisfaction. That's not the issue under discussion anyway.)
4b) "Well then why," the state may ask, "should we give you any benefits?" And I'm afraid we can see the answers today. "If you do, we'll vote for you, donate money, give you awards, set you up with speaking engagements, write good things about you in the press and internet, and support you in any way we can." For those unwilling to give the benefits? "We will embarass you publicly, glitter, harass your supporters (Prop. 8), support your opponents, circulate misleading articles, and call you terrible names in all our messaging. And we will disrupt society with marches, festivals, vandalism, church disruptions, harassment of uninvolved citizens, causing offense to Christians, and anything else we can think of." Posters have already stated that this is a battle with no room to compromise

5) Do you have a final conclusion?
5a) I think so, and it saddens me. It appears the gay marriage movement is simply another interest group using the ethical equivalents of bribery and extortion to get state benefits for it's members.

I don't like my conclusion, and I suspect you don't either. Please point out the flaws, so I can correct my thinking on this matter.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Dear Charles,

It is with a heavy heart that I continue to post in these vitriolic threads where my cries for freedom are countered with hate mongers disguising themselves as "equal rights" advocates who pretend to rage against the hate. For anyone who has come to know me, and many of those advocating marriage licenses for gays know well enough my stance, it should never be any surprise that my stance is on the side of unalienable rights. It is not a surprise for many of those advocating licensing acceptance for gay marriage, they simply believe my fight for freedom has no place in an argument about "equal rights".

Worse than the gay movement as an interest group lobbying government using bribery and extortion to gain a tactical advantage - let's face it, such tactics are politics du jure - is that this movement has long positioned themselves as sacrificial lambs at the alter of "civil rights" where their aspirations are to be considered a suspect class. Victomology 101 is the lesson here. The push for "equal rights" is a doctrine asserting that victims have more rights than those who refuse to be victims.

The profound disregard for unalienable rights and the shocking display of strong arming and bullying by a movement that would simultaneously ask us to accept their effete gregariousness on display at their pleasure, is not only hypocritical, they willingly and inexplicably alienate those who would fight the fiercest for their rights...unalienable rights where government has no lawful authority to grant, nor take away. Even so Charles, we have an obligation, an inherent responsibility to continue to fight for the rights of all people.

This marriage issue will not go away as long as licensing schemes, filing privileges, and indirect benefits to possessing a license for marriage exist. The gay marriage push, in my mind, only exposes the willingness of all people to acquiesce to intrusive government. The willingness of the religious to accept that their churches have conspired with government to impose a license without even having the decency to declare marriage illegal - at least then marriage licenses could be easily challenged - is no less disheartening than watching a movement that once insisted that their "pride" was about freedom and no need to ask for permission to be gay, now willfully and fiercely demands permission as if they're reached their teenage years as a movement and have, like all teenagers tend to do, eschewed reason in favor of pouty petulance.

All people have the right to contract. Marriage is a contract. That contract is more than enough in terms of legal documentation to show the marriage exists. However, in today's politics du jure, even the simple contract of employment is monitored and approved or disapproved by the government. None of us are guilt free in this issue. We are all guilty. Heterosexuals have long acquiesced to marriage licenses and now they aspire to use their acquiescence as a weapon to keep others from gaining the same privilege they've accepted, and let's not make any mistakes about this, licensing schemes are privilege, not rights.

In the arena of political theater, this whole marriage licensing scheme is political theater of the absurd where humanity is as clownish and slapstick as Vladimir and Estragon and we'd all gladly leave the absurdity behind if we could, but strangely we cannot because we are all, after all, Waiting for Godot.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
THE only problem with the mo's being all up & arms is now every time i go to chic-fl-A 's they are always outta food since the hetros are lining up to support them



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

Your solution is radical, simple, extreme, and probably unworkable. I know you will accept those as accolades, and as such they are intended.

I'm greatly appreciative of your efforts to present your clear vision. It provides the fresh view necessary in the world of mind numbing talking points.

I also appreciate the Waiting for Godot reference. I saw it decades ago, and have to admit, shamefully, that it created no great impression on me at the time. Thanks for the reminder and the link.

I've read the post following yours, Thomas81z, if I remember correctly. I wasn't sure whether to cry or tear out my hair. Since I have no trouble replacing my tears, and replacing my hair is now highly questionable, I think I'll go with the tears with an admixture of anger.

Your comments compel serious thought. At first, I wonder about the harm done by a state attempting to encourage behaviors that it finds are to it's own advantage. I'm not as thoroughly critical of it as you seem to be, but I'll have to work on it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
EQUAL is self explanatory

Complicating it is a choice.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
EQUAL is self explanatory

Complicating it is a choice.


Then why do you chose to complicate it? In law, there is only equality of the law. All people are equal in the eyes of the law and need no special dispensation in order to achieve "equality". That special dispensation perverts equality under the law.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

3a) The issue is, that the state has decided to give out certain benefits and priveleges to people it recognizes as married, and currently gays don't get them. These benefits were created entirely by the state and can be (and have been) changed by the state. They are discretionary with the state, there is no requirement that they be granted, all of the "marriage" benefits could be removed by legislation or executive order. In short, these benefits aren't "rights" for anyone.



Seems to me you are only trying to justify your own position - - - of denying equality.

Point is they ARE granted to some and not others.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

What I was trying to do was work through some ideas in an organized manner, one step following another. I admitted it was tentative and invited people to poke holes in it. I came to the conclusion that the gay marriage movement was primarily about obtaining benefits, in the same way in which nearly all politics is conducted, with a slightly nasty twist. Basically, it was a wrestling match not justified by a rights argument.

Jean Paul (if I may be so informal) maintained that issuing marriage licenses was an improper activity for the state to engage in, and that such paper should not exist.

So here we have two different approaches. I'm reconsidering mine based on his comments, but I don't think either one of us (forgive me for speaking for you, Jean Paul, and I may be misunderstanding you) is excited by the idea that gays are entitled to the marriage license, with it's attendant benefits, as a matter of right.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Point is they ARE granted to some and not others.


Therein lies your choice of complication. Give any governing body the authority to grant "equality" it should be no surprise that any governing body will determine who they will grant this "equality" to and who they will deny it. Teenagers pout at what their parents will not grant them. Then they grow up and assert their own right to take the freedom that is theirs to take.





top topics
 
30
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join