Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues

page: 6
72
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Interesting blog on the definition and history of Secular Marriages.
Arizona



He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract. He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and not officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.





Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this. He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -- meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.





In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -- the parents are only conditional caretakers.

THE PARENTS ARE ONLY POTENTIAL CARETAKERS. So that is why you don't need a license to breed.





By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law decends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish jurisconsults. In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."


Free!!???
Liberty!!???
My donkey says we are not!




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Marriage Licenses are a Trojan Horse. What is inside is another vice to "bind you in contractual agreement" to the state and its dictations. Just like a social security card. Just like a birth certificate.


The state started to get involved with the growth of the Mormon religion. Mormon polygamy motivated the state to get tougher about what counted for a valid marriage and what did not.


History of Marriage

edit on 6-9-2012 by sirjunlegun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Ive said it before, I'll say it again- This guy is the worst POLITICIAN who's run for president in years. Close to Kerry but Id say a few notches lower. He's so plastic and fake I really just watch him in amazement. I cannot believe that so many people out there are just lapping up his empty rhetoric. He thinks that just walking around with a big shiz-eating grin & shaking hands is enough to be president. I'm no fan of Obama but this guy is just awful



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged

How exactly is marriage a "right"? It is not mentioned as a right in ANY of our founding documents and is not as recognized natural right.



Marriage used to be a right. The right of a man to have exclusive sex with a woman, whom he called his wife, and who bore him his children. And the right of the woman to receive support from a man whom she called her husband, who was required to take responsibility for supporting those children which were the fruit of their lusts, etc..

But over the years things changed. They changed a lot. A man could have outside relationships, his wife could have secret lovers, there are even "swingers" that share partners openly, etc..So, there's no more exclusivity. A man no longer has the right to have sex with his wife. If she says no, and he tries anyway, he goes to jail for rape, just like a total stranger would, etc..There are some tax benefits, and social customs remaining, like right to visit spouse in hospital, etc.. But marriage today is completely different from what marriage meant a century ago.

The change has been gradual so people don't really understand how different modern marriage is from traditional marriage. We get a glimpse into traditional marriage by looking at those societies that still operate in old fashion ways, which we condemn as barbaric and prehistoric.





If marriage between two men is a right, is polygamy also a right?


Polygamy should also be a right. Why not? These are things we create. It is society that creates the "groupings" of people, and the rights of those groupings. Right and wrong is what we define it to be. This is what freedom is all about. The ability to create order after our own fashion and ideas. Today, gay is fashion. Tomorrow, polygamy and polyandry may well become the fashion of the day. It's all about change. Long ago polygamy was very fashionable. How it fell out of fashion is a mystery. Polyandry was never fashionable in the past, so that's one "new thing" to experiment with in the future. We are experimenting with human relationships.

The old tried and true forms are just boring. Whatever exists, people want change. Just something new. Marry your pet. There's a novel idea. I wish I could ensure my pet cat inherits all my wealth so that she would be well looked after when I'm gone. Why shouldn't my pet get the benefits of any companion? Equal rights for all living things. That's what the constitution guarantees, or aught to anyway, as we shall come to interpret it in the future.




If your state wants to allow for gay marriage thats fine, go for it. But lets not rewrite history and pretend like marriage appears ANYWHERE as a right in any of our countries documents...


It's like breathing. The constitution guarantees the right of all people to breathe. But, it's not written explicitly anywhere. It's sort of assumed to be included in the concept of "equal rights". It's all about "interpretation." The interpretations are being expanded to become more inclusive of other things as we expand our minds.




If people want gay marriage, then vote for it. Otherwise imposing it on the nation is no better than any other tyrannical act.


Not enough gays to pass a "change of marriage" act. So, they come under "minority" protections. The right of any minority to have equal rights to the majority.
edit on 6-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   


Ive said it before, I'll say it again- This guy is the worst POLITICIAN who's run for president in years. Close to Kerry but Id say a few notches lower. He's so plastic and fake I really just watch him in amazement. I cannot believe that so many people out there are just lapping up his empty rhetoric. He thinks that just walking around with a big shiz-eating grin & shaking hands is enough to be president. I'm no fan of Obama but this guy is just awful
reply to post by drnen
 


And I will say it again. The Hollywoodization of politics is apparent in statements like this. You essentially said you don't like the way he looks and you don't trust his personality on camera. As far as a businessman, his record is stellar. He had failures but so did Henry Ford, Edison, and our much beloved Tesla. Overall he is a success. He is the only Governor I know of ever that actually kept and fulfilled all forty something campaign promises in Mass. He did so by hiring people based on their ability and not their party affiliation.
No offense but it sounds like you like being dazzled rather than logical. As far as just walking around shkin hands to be president. I guess you forget his father was a Governor. As was he. And a CEO. And he is highly educated and utilized it in business. Remember the office of President of the United States is called the Chief Executive Office not Director of Cummunity Organizing, Experience not smile makes a good leader.
edit on 6-9-2012 by sirjunlegun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirjunlegun
I understand people who want to be in same sex marriages and outside of work covered insurance benefits and social security most things can be solved by a simple power of attorney.


Not true at all.
The Federal Government specifically defines somewhere around 1100 "rights and responsibilities" related to marriage. These are not duplicated in any other way other than a state recognized marriage including things such as 'domestic partnerships' and similar appeasements, and in most states, common law marriage is no longer recognized.

Examples


I will say this as well since our "love lives" have been legislated. We should not let our emotions ever decide when they conflict against the statistics.


No, we should not let our own emotions or even issues and hidden phobias or *whatever* spill over into other people's freedoms and personal lives.

The same-sex marriage equality issue is NOT about our 'love lives' but about our rights simply by virtue of being American citizens....supposedly granted the same rights in all things as every other American citizen.


I sat in a debate on the House floor of the Indiana State Representatives, a packed house I might add. The debate was between a medical doctor who had a friend that was gay and wanted to marry his partner and an Indiana State Rep. I thought this "logical, calculating," medical doctor was going to shut the state rep down. What I learned about countries that have allowed state sanctioned marriage was flooring. I had no idea. The Representative effectively shut the doctor down with hard facts that left the doctor's closing statement with literally "i love my wife and I am lucky to have her. She is my best friend. I am lucky we were both born heterosexual so we could fall in love and get married, my friend can not." I thought, "WHAT!!!??" that's it? That is his argument?


Ridiculous to have to come up with an argument in order to be entitled to rights that we should never have been denied in the first place, don't you think?


Somethings in Denmark have experienced are the highest rate of alchol and drug abuse in the world among young adults whose parents are homosexual partners verses those in a traditional marriage. Before you think it is because of close-minded social stigmas thrust upon them stop because you will be wrong. You see when two women/men are married they more times than not divorce at a higher rate than heterosexuals. The cost to society and the public coffers is overwhelming. For one, everybody in economics knows divorce is costly. Two, children more often than not were brought into the family "unaturally" through surrogates and adoption. Guess what happens when custody battles come. Most go from fighting and using the child as a weapon to threaten the other with using the child as a burden. Before you think the alcohol/drug abuse is higher in all adopted children stop again you will be wrong. Overwhelmingly it is higher in young adults that are from same sex families. The children tend to need more counseling, therapy, medication, and typically have a high rate of suicide after the "state" fails them. Who do you think bears the burden of taxes and "health care" in these socialized systems of "state parenting?" That's right society!


I think you might do a bit more research, actually.
Bottom line, is, though...that it has nothing to do with moral codes or even social reform! It is simply a matter of our RIGHTS as United States citizens. A lot of kids have to go through those same things who are born 'naturally' in heterosexual relationships...married or not. Dysfunction is universal and certainly something we all also share as a nation...why not rights, too?
There is no excuse to deny someone certain rights because of sexual orientation...no more than there was ever any justification for denying someone certain rights because of the color of their skin or the nation of their birth. If they are AMERICANS...then they are AMERICANS.


SO before we go making decisions based on aww what feels good we need to look at some cold hard facts as I am sure Mr. Romney has done.


What feels good to me is every American getting the same rights as I enjoy as a 'white' heterosexual female American.

Are you aware of the story behind President Obama changing his own mind from being against same-sex marriages to now being in favor of recognizing them as equal?



As far as Mr. Romney and cold hard facts are concerned...I'm not sure if he'd know a cold hard fact if it bit him on the nose.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by drnen
Ive said it before, I'll say it again- This guy is the worst POLITICIAN who's run for president in years. Close to Kerry but Id say a few notches lower. He's so plastic and fake I really just watch him in amazement. I cannot believe that so many people out there are just lapping up his empty rhetoric. He thinks that just walking around with a big shiz-eating grin & shaking hands is enough to be president. I'm no fan of Obama but this guy is just awful


Totally agree. I've never seen anyone act so disingenuous when he speaks - I can't bring myself to believe anything he says. How anyone can get fired up about him is beyond me. What cracks me up is his look when he's listening to someone talk (look at him in this video) - it's the same look he had during the debates - as if he's thinking "I feel very uncomfortable talking to you"..



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


I totally agree.

The issue now is a bit confused in that while the Federal Government defines the rights and responsibilities of marriage, the issuance of marriage licenses is a state matter...compounded by Clinton's signing the DOM act into law...which was a clear case of the Federal overriding the states...but yet if the Federal level is where the definition of the rights are...it seems that the best remedy would be to make the recognition of legal marriage contracts a Federal issue while states continue to issue the licenses.

I don't see how the act of issuing a license really has any true relevance on what that license permits or recognizes, per se. It is just the documentation of such...we need something on the Federal level to just take care of the issue in a more efficient and timely way than this state by state drawn out mess that seems to be the norm. It wastes time and money and it is invariably about the legislator's own personal opinions and views than it is about the issue of rights and responsibilities granted to citizens. We could just cut all that garbage out and get on to the next thing.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Why have marriage in the first place. It serves no purpose. It's just a piece of paper. If a couple want to confess there love in public, have a Party...

I am not in favour of same sex relationships either. we have male and female for a reason. The anus is not a sexual organ, it's sole purpose is for waste disposal !!!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirjunlegun
I guess you forget his father was a Governor. As was he. And a CEO. And he is highly educated and utilized it in business. Remember the office of President of the United States is called the Chief Executive Office not Director of Cummunity Organizing, Experience not smile makes a good leader.
edit on 6-9-2012 by sirjunlegun because: (no reason given)


What does 'business success' have to do with the title Chief Executive Officer?
Executive simply means "a person or group of persons having administrative or supervisory authority in an organization."

In the case of the President of the United States, the 'organization' would be WE THE PEOPLE...and I personally would rather have a former 'community activist' in a supervisory authority position over WE THE PEOPLE than I would a successful business man.

Because community = people and business = profit.




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   


Originally posted by sirjunlegun
reply to post by queenannie38
 

I don't know if I agree with you entirely, In fact I may have opened it wrong. I don't believe marriage hsould be regulated by the state, I have other posts afterwards defining marriage as what it is viewed by the state, That it is a business agreement that allows the state to dictate our personal lives. I stated it is a Trojan Horse. I unfortunatley and reluctantly signed up for social security cards and birth certificates effectively entering my two children into a contractual agreement with the state. They cannot go to school, work, etc without them.
We are not free. The state imposes on our lives. I beleive the marriage is between a man and a woman, but I think every man and woman ought to be able to dictate their property and benefits to whomever they wish. I cna't stand the death tax. I can't stand many things the government imposes. I don;t do illicit drugs but I can;t stand the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body. I believe that veryone is accountable to God for thmselves and themselves only to God. Society has many commonl laws. If a man or a woman wants to put a coke bottle up their butt let them explain to God why. If the state tells me said man/woman got the coke bottle stuck in their butt and I need to pay for it through socialized medicine so they can get back to work and pay their taxes I have a problem with that, Otherwise, there is no weight in the "live and let live" in a socialized world.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 





Ridiculous to have to come up with an argument in order to be entitled to rights that we should never have been denied in the first place, don't you think?

Yes it is. This I agree with, Maybe I did not explain my position well enough, I stated facts that were presented in a debate, My views are marriage is between a man and woman. Civil Unions are what we heterosexuals really have. The state usurped the word. Any human being ought to be able to dictate his wishes and agreements t any other human being, It is all politicized. You cannot stop a man and woman from living together. Hell in Europe you don;t hardly see marriages being filed anymore. To me that is the most natural and the State hates it.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by patriot51
 





Because community = people and business = profit.


Really??? Where is this people, business, profit you speak so loudly of?

You must mean the grocery business, I am sure 46 milion people are maxing out their food stamp cards monthly. Something else they profit from is they use their food stamp cards until they are denied. Long after they get their jobs, But hey, its not their money. Its their rations paid for by somebody else. I am sorry Americans are in the state they are in. It is brought on by the central banks and the 17 trillion dollar bets they made. I am glad that we have social nets. But profits? You must mean the one JP Morgan makes for handling food stamp card accounts?
edit on 6-9-2012 by sirjunlegun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
While Im pro gay-marriage I think its more important that a politician sticks to his guns and we know what to expect of him. Obama changes his stance on gay-marriage at the whim of public sentiment and thats neither honest nor consistent. Gays will be more recognized in every manner in society, but whats more important now is the economy not sexual orientation.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


I don't get this whole stick to their guns mentality. Aren't public figures elected by the people, for the people, to represent the people's interests? If someone was elected and are against gay marriage, then in a few years they find out the majority of their constituents are pro gay marriage, should the elected official not represent his electors wishes and support them? Isn't that what Democracy is?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I find it very sad, but not surprising, that Mittens changes his position so much. He used to be a very progressive member of the GOP. It was not until he started to run for president that he really started to change his positions so much. He attracts the extremest anti-equality factions in America to the GOP. Why the GOP leadership thinks that the only way they can get a candidate in office is by pandering to such hardcore conformist and religious factions is beyond me at times.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by Cuervo
 


So should Mitt have said he supported gay marriage to appease this guy? I applaud any politician that is consistent, and doesn't just tell people what they want to hear.


lol that's the first time I've ever seen the words Romney and consistent in the same sentence. Are you sure you're talking about Mitt Romney?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirjunlegun



Because community = people and business = profit.


Really??? Where is this people, business, profit you speak so loudly of?

You must mean the grocery business, I am sure 46 milion people are maxing out their food stamp cards monthly. Something else they profit from is they use their food stamp cards until they are denied. Long after they get their jobs, But hey, its not their money. Its their rations paid for by somebody else. I am sorry Americans are in the state they are in. It is brought on by the central banks and the 17 trillion dollar bets they made. I am glad that we have social nets. But profits? You must mean the one JP Morgan makes for handling food stamp card accounts?
edit on 6-9-2012 by sirjunlegun because: (no reason given)


You misunderstood.

If Romney's expertise is rooted in his business acumen, then he is oriented toward profit.
If Obama's expertise is rooted in his experience as a community activist, then he is oriented toward people.

And while the economics of our nation directly impact the people who live in it, it is not intended that the people are servants to the economy but that economy serves and benefits the people...and the people should ideally be the source and the power in the economy.

And given the specifics of Romney's own business resume, it would seem that Romney puts profit in front of people...and his own profit ahead of any benefit to those by whom he might profit. If others have profited from Romney's association in business matters, then I suspect it is simply a case of circumstances making it so...in other words, if Romney's profits somehow profit someone else, that's fine with him. But by the same measure, if his own profits end up costing others somehow, that's also fine with him.

That's just what I have observed given the information available.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
What more can I say?This guy summed up Romney's campaign perfectly at the end when he said " Good luck, you're going to need it".

That man did a great job of staying calm when it looked like he wanted to slap the guy.


I agree that this is not a truly free country until all legal adult citizens share the same rights..... We are not at that point yet, but here is hoping that we someday will be.
edit on 6-9-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sirjunlegun
 


I understand what you are saying...really, I do.

It goes beyond personal feelings of all variance when it is approached on a purely civil level.
And like it or not, we do have a government and we do have rights as well as responsibilities in all areas of our lives as Americans.

That's just human society and some sort of government exists whenever more than a small family are gathered together as a community...

I don't think it is about states 'regulating' anything. It shouldn't be, anyway, and I don't think that was the original intention.

Simply stated, the Federal government, intending to protect and ensure certain rights as well as define certain reasonable responsibilities in regard to the 'institution' of marriage...which, btw, has probably been in existence, in some form, for almost as long as humans have been bi-pedal...put those rights and responsibilities into written form and enacted them into law.

Therefore, there must also be a legal definition of what 'marriage' is so that who is entitled/obliged to those rights and responsibilities as 'married persons' is clearly defined and hopefully understood.

That's just the way it has to be.

But since it is such a controversial issue, it gets so obfuscated by personal opinion.

It was simpler to come to terms with when it dealt with these same issues on the racial level. It is not a matter of personal opinion that one person's skin is white and the other person's skin is brown or black...and while the same kind of religious and even personal prejudice made it messy for a while, in the end it was illogical to say that one person was more entitled to enjoy a union recognized by everyone as lawful and sanctioned and another was not...simply because of skin color.

I did not choose to be born as a white skinned Scotch-Irish straight female...but that is the situation I live every day.
Same thing applies to someone else who might be dark-skinned...or gay.

We don't have choices in these things. Choices should not be dictated to us other than the ones that we all have to make.

I do tend to agree there is too much butting in of our lives...be that as it may...we must not let it be unfair or based on anything other than the fact that we are human and we are American. Beyond that, it is discrimination no matter the reasons why or what statistics show or the potential gains or dangers....if it is not equally available then it is discrimination.
edit on 9/6/2012 by queenannie38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


You do realize up until 2 1/2 or 3 months ago Obama was also against gay marriage, right?

abcnews.go.com...

He explained it as his views "evolving". Instead of attacking Romney immediately, give him time, his views may "evolve" just like Obama's.





top topics
 
72
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join