Rosie gets married

[pawclaws]

I ain't done yet! How many of you guys said essentially; "It don't affect me?" Well it damn sure does! You are are witnessing an elected official stand in defiance of the laws enacted by the people that elected him. Think about where that goes. Also consider that this official stood and quoted the oath of office on day one and swore to protect and defend. Best wake up folks. And this kind of bothers me a bit as well: We have a judge canned and tossed for standing a tribute to the 10 Commandments in his office in an honest effort to enshrine something good and decent yet a Mayor performing/authorizing cut and dry, black and white, "illegal" judicial acts and apparently it is being ignored or accepted.

 

[GLW]

1-pointer, comparing children with being fat? Please man! Children are an investment in our future! Being fat is an investment at your local grocier! See any comparison?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by hogwild:
I could really care less about Dubya and what all the polictical hubbub this is causing. The main thing to me is that God put a lot of effort into the reproductive system. It is a big insult to God to.... My brother, his partner, and my neighbors know where I stand on this issue and they do not ask anymore because they know they will get an earful (calm and collected) without apology which they do not like.

The more we try to rationalize this, this stupider it sounds.

Hogwild,
Would Hunters Helping Hunters help a family of Hunters, if there were 2 Dads in the family, or 2 Mommys?

The one thing and one thing only that tightens my jaws here is that a small group of people who elect a particular life style are demanding that they not only be treated as a self defined minority group but also as the majority and redefine or break existing laws in the process to cater to their perverted whims!

Paws,
But you don't have a problem with comments like Bill's "Gays, Lawyers,Illegal Hispanics cant tell much differance, open a hunting season. One of each per day."?

How is it a an affront to God for a Mayor to extend Rights to all, but not a bigger affront to God to kill "Gays, Lawyers,Illegal Hispanics"?

yet a Mayor performing/authorizing cut and dry, black and white, "illegal" judicial acts and apparently it is being ignored or accepted.

Paws,
So far the Mayor and his "law breaking" have gone in front of a Judge(s) 3 times, and all of the hearings have refused to stop it. The Mayor also believes he has an "Equal Protection" clause to uphold, and he is using it. That is why we have Judges and Courts, to decide which part of the Constitution trumps the other part.

"Not only did two lower court judges ... determine there is no irreparable harm being done, now the Supreme Court said the same thing," Newsom said.

"yet a Mayor performing/authorizing cut and dry, black and white, "illegal" judicial acts and apparently it is being ignored or accepted." This is hardly being "ignored/accepted", as it is being discussed across the country and in Courts and Legislatures.

And Paws, isn't the USA all about protecting the rights of Minority groups? Isn't that why we are free to have every religion practiced here? "here is that a small group of people who elect a particular life style are demanding that they not only be treated as a self defined minority group but also as the majority" and as a Hunter, are you on firm ground with these types of statements? What happens when the "Non-Hunting" majority decides they are tired of the small "Hunting" minority?

The institution of marriage has been in a state of flux for centuries:

It was only after the civil war that Afro-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.

It was only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in the U.S.

There seems to be a trend in this country. Would you call for the overturning of the 1967 Supreme decision on mixed-race couples? Would you advocate returning tot he pre-Civil War laws?

 

[Whiskers]

All this makes my HEADHURT. Too many good arguements either way. I guess for freedom sake, they have a right to marry. Just as I have a right to think that its wrong. The same way anti-gunners have a right to try to curtail my right to own a gun. Freedom carries alot of responsibilites, and disappointments. To be truly free, we could all do as we pleased without causing harm to another.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Whiskers:
All this makes my HEADHURT. Too many good arguements either way. I guess for freedom sake, they have a right to marry. Just as I have a right to think that its wrong. The same way anti-gunners have a right to try to curtail my right to own a gun. Freedom carries alot of responsibilites, and disappointments. To be truly free, we could all do as we pleased without causing harm to another.

Whiskers,
Well said.

We all have rights, and responsibilities.

Let's let the processes proceed, in Legislatures, Court Rooms, and Newspaper Editorial pages (Editorials, Letters, and Guest Opinions). To openly advocate Hate Crimes is a path this country should not proceed toward.

I missed the Civil Rights movements of the '60s, so this has the potential to be great Political theatre. Let's allow it to un-fold.

But I still maintain my original point, this is an issue to be decided by the States, and not by Dubya and the Federal Government.

 

[1_pointer]

GLW- I agree kids are our future. But, I'm thinking the quality of the future should be a higher priority than the quantity of those in that future. For what I care about and love to do, those things are inversely proportional. Smaller, more educated, personally involved families are a better bet IMO, than large scale population increases. Getting tax benefits for having children is reverse economics.

 

[Oak]

You are are witnessing an elected official stand in defiance of the laws enacted by the people that elected him. Think about where that goes. Also consider that this official stood and quoted the oath of office on day one and swore to protect and defend. Best wake up folks. And this kind of bothers me a bit as well: We have a judge canned and tossed for standing a tribute to the 10 Commandments in his office in an honest effort to enshrine something good and decent yet a Mayor performing/authorizing cut and dry, black and white, "illegal" judicial acts and apparently it is being ignored or accepted.

Paws, I don't see how these judges are "...performing/authorizing...'illegal' judicial acts...." The original judge ruled that the law passed by CA is unconstitutional, which means it was trumped by the supreme law of the land. How many other citizen-passed initiatives in this country have been deemed unconstitutional? I don't think this is a first time, precedent-setting case.

I also don't believe religion belongs in the courts (since you brought it up). We supposedly have freedom of religion in this country...it's not right to prosecute in the courts under a specific moral or ethical standard set by one religion (not laws ). Simply follow the letter of the laws...there's plenty of religious influence in those to get your religious agenda accomplished. JMHO, of course...

FWIW, I agree 100% with Pointer's kids/fat analogy.

Oak

 

[pawclaws]

Elkgunner your entire arguement can be summarized as "one judicial indiscretion supporting another; therefore it must be proper=, or" Gays and Lesbians are a minority group". To which I respond; "Two wrongs do not make a right." "Gays and Lesbians may be in the minority; but, that does not make them a minority group or afford them special protections accorded minorities." If gays are a minority group who deserve minority group status; then, so are the homeless, witches, cannibals, child molestors, and Limburger cheese lovers.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paws,

Thank you for summarizing my entire argument, unfortunately you are wrong. Kinda like Harley being the number one nameplate in Japan...

If you were to read what I have posted, the only summary one could reach is that this is a State's Rights issue, and has no place in a the US Constitution. It is unfortunate that you were not able to read that in the umpteen posts I put in here.

Why on earth you would want the Federal Goverment in your Private life is amazing.

Paws, should we now deny rights to Baptists, as they are not the Majority in the US? Should we deny rights to Jews, as they are not the Majority? Should we deny rights to Catholics, as they are not the Majority? Should we deny rights to Mormons, as they are not the Majority? Why on earth would you advocate a denial of rights to someone based upon skin color, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation? Just how far back in the dark ages do you want to live?

Oak,
I love it when the Religous Right wants to have the Government in charge of their religion. Just like School Prayer, where parents need the Schools to teach their kids to pray, as they can't seem to instill these values at home. Of course, when they have to walk past the excerpts from the Torah or the Koran on their way to re-new their driver's license....

Now the "Moral Majority" wants us to believe that the only way we can have Laws in this country is to have the Ten Commandments posted in every Court Room and City Hall in the land. Any Judge that were to cite the Bible as precent in a decision shold be removed and/or impeached.

 

[pawclaws]

Elkgunner; I think you are a mental case! Just my humble opinion. Raving lunatic; yep, that's it allright! Focus man! Try to follow a single thought through to conclusion without meandering all over the globe! If you don't like my "broad brush summary"; too bad, get over it. I believe it is quite appropriate. This issue has nada to do with states rights, freedom of religeon, or any minority being deprived of rights. Big brother, doesn't give a rat's behind, as many of the folk here have expressed. Even the Prez's comments were directed toward the moral perspective of the issue rather than the clear and outright violation of legal precedent and established law. I think it quite the appropriate time that Judges stop re-writing law in the freakin' court room or the Mayoral office.

 

[JoseCuervo]

. I think it quite the appropriate time that Judges stop re-writing law in the freakin' court room or the Mayoral office.

Yeah, I bet you were dissappointed in the '60s when Dr. King and others had to use the Court rooms to re-write all the segregation laws.

Sorry Paws, but you unfortunately live 150 years too late.

 

[Yukon Hunter]

Let me preface this by saying that I whole-heartedly agree with Gay and Lesbians having the right to marry. While I don't participate in the activity myself, and would frankly prefer not to have to bear witness to it, it really doesn't affect (effect?) me one way or the other.
I can't, for the life of me, see a single reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. The religious argument holds no water with me. "It ain't nacheral". So? When's the last time you saw a doe performing fellatio on a buck?
The legality argument doesn't wash with me, either- the fact that it's illegal now doesn't mean it should be. There are some stupid laws on the books. In Washington, D.C. it's only legal to have sex in the missionary position. Some laws are archaic, and the "Man/Woman" thing is one of them.
As a smarter man than me once said, the hardest thing about freedom is letting others have it...

 

[Washington Hunter]

I agree kids are our future. But, I'm thinking the quality of the future should be a higher priority than the quantity of those in that future. For what I care about and love to do, those things are inversely proportional. Smaller, more educated, personally involved families are a better bet IMO, than large scale population increases. Getting tax benefits for having children is reverse economics.

I couldn't agree more. 1 Pointer for president!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Washington Hunter:
I couldn't agree more. 1 Pointer for president!

He ain't 35 yet.... so he can't be. That IS in the Constitution!!!!

Yuke,

While I don't participate in the activity myself, and would frankly prefer not to have to bear witness to it, it really doesn't affect (effect?) me one way or the other.

Even that scene in all the porn flicks with the 2 gals???

 

[Washington Hunter]

Elkgunner, I would assume that when he said he would "prefer not to have to bear witness to it," that he was thinking of seeing 2 gay men together, not women. I think it is a fantasy of most normal men to see two women together...well, as long as it's not 2 fat chicks.

And say, if 1 Pointer isn't old enough to be prez yet, how about you?

 

[Yukon Hunter]

One of my favorites from T-Shirt Hell (if you don't have a REAL good sense of humor, don't go there...)
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a286/a286.gif

 

[Washington Hunter]

Good one YH...I love it!

 

[pawclaws]

"Yeah, I bet you were dissappointed in the '60s when Dr. King and others had to use the Court rooms to re-write all the segregation laws."

Excuse me Junior (Elk Gunner!) In the 60s I was there while the freedom marches were going on, blacks were being hanged, naieve college kids were sticking out their necks for the rights of genuinely mistreated citizens suffering prejudice and discrimination at the hands of ignorant bigots who cared no more for their fellow man than most do for a cockroach. Only a fool or a person of unmeasurable ignorance would make such an assenine comment. Yes there was great disappointment. Not because Dr. King filed suits but because it was necessary in the first place. At least he had the good sense to use the legal system in place as it existed to bring his cause forth.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paws,

So Matthew Shephard (I think that his is name), the kid from Wyoming was not genuinely mis-treated? So Judges with Courage should not be providing equal protection to all, in his case? How is what happened in the '60s any different than what happened in Wyoming?

Look at the post by Bill "Gays, Lawyers,Illegal Hispanics cant tell much differance, open a hunting season. One of each per day." Tell me how you can sit idle while Hate speech like that is offered.

You have the audacity to call me a lunatic, and yet apperantly are not offended by Bill, to even comment?

As you posted on the Duck Hunt thread on Feb 12, I would hope this applies to you...
"I certainly hope you aren't raising children. Would be a real shame to raise kids without imparting at least a general understanding of self discipline, manners, and respect for the personal rights of others. And so many hunters wonder why the "group" is identified as assholes!"

If I ever found out my kids did not step into help some kid who was being threatend because of his sexual orientation, skin color, or occupation (parent's), like Bill is threatening, I would be beating on my kids.

 

[hogwild]

Elkgunner,

HHH help's hunters ... period.

I know many people who are gay; my brother, neighbor, my tax consultant, etc... I get along with them, but this is not about legalities. This is not about freedoms. This is not about rights. It is about boundaries. God's bounderies. And man keeps moving them. He sent his Son to move them back to there rightful place. Man spit on Him, beat Him, and in order to make sure He did not move them back, they killed Him so they could do whatever they wanted to rationalize and justify though intellectualism. (see Romans chapter 1, sound familiar?) What boundaries will be next to be moved? Remember when Ricky and Lucy slept in separate beds? Now parental discretion is advised for Disney movies. What laws shall we remove next because we do not like the boundary? If marijana should be legal, why not heroin? We ALL do it...move boundaries. It does not make it right because we all do it. I have a caseload full of boundery movers (probationers). It's my job to make sure they understand the boundaries. I don't know how many times I have heard from someone who has their first DWI, "It's not like I am a criminal". God is going to send his Son again to reestablish the boundaries to there original place.

In the meantime, Elkgunner, I will continue to help whoever needs it despite their sexual preference, race, gender, yadda, yadda... I don't hate my brother or my neighbor or my tax consultant, but I will tell them to their face that I think they are wrong without apology. They won't hate me...maybe pity me for being simple minded. My brother is dying for his choice (as could I have died for some of the choices I have made). Speaking of... Moosie, take my name off the Adult jokes list...I need to move that boundary back.

Sermon finished. You guys can go back to debating (or intellectualing) the issue. As you said; it does not affect you one way or another.

But peg A still goes in hole B, not hole C.