[Harry Rex Vonner]

Hopefully Harry Rex will see this ^ and look it up, lol. In the meantime, I got two words for you, state sovereignty. If you truly want the federal government to force ideas such as same sex marriage on the American public, you don't understand freedom.

I am quite familiar with precedent. I have always been told that it allows courts to take the easy way out, from time to time, by going along with a previous decision rather than "plowing new ground". For example, why change a precedent set in A v B by old Judge Blackacre in 1950? If Judge Blackacre found in a certain way, it looks good to us so we affirm it. That is using precedent.

The long established precedent of local control a/k/a the Tenth Amendment a/k/a the States Rights Amendment is certainly embedded in our body of law. Thus, the precedent in regard to homosexual marriages still rests with the supporters of traditional marriage.

Marriage, like speed limits and state income tax rates, is strictly a Tenth Amendment issue to be decided individually by each of the fifty venues. And, if we are truly honest (a rarity in this day), regulation of abortion should be a Tenth Amendment issue as it was for the entire life of our nation prior to January 22, 1973.

Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was not illegal in this country as abortionists would like you to believe. Abortion was, like most other issues, decided from state to state. Several states, like California, had legalized abortions long prior to Roe v Wade.

Unlike the spinners, it never hurts to express the real truth from time to time.

[TheRealThing]

I am quite familiar with precedent. I have always been told that it allows courts to take the easy way out, from time to time, by going along with a previous decision rather than "plowing new ground". For example, why change a precedent set in A v B by old Judge Blackacre in 1950? If Judge Blackacre found in a certain way, it looks good to us so we affirm it. That is using precedent.

The long established precedent of local control a/k/a the Tenth Amendment a/k/a the States Rights Amendment is certainly embedded in our body of law. Thus, the precedent in regard to homosexual marriages still rests with the supporters of traditional marriage.

Marriage, like speed limits and state income tax rates, is strictly a Tenth Amendment issue to be decided individually by each of the fifty venues. And, if we are truly honest (a rarity in this day), regulation of abortion should be a Tenth Amendment issue as it was for the entire life of our nation prior to January 22, 1973.

Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was not illegal in this country as abortionists would like you to believe. Abortion was, like most other issues, decided from state to state. Several states, like California, had legalized abortions long prior to Roe v Wade.

Unlike the spinners, it never hurts to express the real truth from time to time.

Boy, isn't that the truth! :biggrin: Liberals have learned that since the founding fathers are long dead, reinterpretation of the law is simply a matter of dogged persistence and properly parroted propaganda.

[TheRealThing]

^ As far as American citizens go, there are many.

I'm sorry. I should have asked how many there are outside of la-la land.

[TheRealVille]

I'm sorry. I should have asked how many there are outside of la-la land.

As to the founding fathers, there were more than one.

[TheRealThing]

As to the founding fathers, there were more than one.

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying. No amount of evidence would cause you to see the truth, because you aren't looking for the truth. You want the bad guys to win and all of your protestations about of liberal passivity is smoke and mirrors. According to your sparkling logic of recent past, the founding fathers were supposedly deists. Now you trying to say they are pantheists.

[TheRealVille]

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying. No amount of evidence would cause you to see the truth, because you aren't looking for the truth. You want the bad guys to win and all of your protestations about of liberal passivity is smoke and mirrors. According to your sparkling logic of recent past, the founding fathers were supposedly deists. Now you trying to say they are pantheists.

No moron, there are more than one founding father, that had different religious beliefs. Some were Christians, some Deists, and some believed in other versions of god. Mutiple founding fathers, with different beliefs, not a single founder believing in mutiple gods. Of course, you knew what I meant, but couldn't help but to try to twist my meaning. I see you've used pantheists a couple of times today, or the last two days. Google taught you a new word, I wouldn't over use it like the last word you discovered, lemmings.

[TheRealVille]

^

http://www.alternet.org/story/153727/5_f...able_today
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/...s-beliefs/

[TheRealVille]

I am quite familiar with precedent. I have always been told that it allows courts to take the easy way out, from time to time, by going along with a previous decision rather than "plowing new ground". For example, why change a precedent set in A v B by old Judge Blackacre in 1950? If Judge Blackacre found in a certain way, it looks good to us so we affirm it. That is using precedent.

The long established precedent of local control a/k/a the Tenth Amendment a/k/a the States Rights Amendment is certainly embedded in our body of law. Thus, the precedent in regard to homosexual marriages still rests with the supporters of traditional marriage.

Marriage, like speed limits and state income tax rates, is strictly a Tenth Amendment issue to be decided individually by each of the fifty venues. And, if we are truly honest (a rarity in this day), regulation of abortion should be a Tenth Amendment issue as it was for the entire life of our nation prior to January 22, 1973.

Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was not illegal in this country as abortionists would like you to believe. Abortion was, like most other issues, decided from state to state. Several states, like California, had legalized abortions long prior to Roe v Wade.

Unlike the spinners, it never hurts to express the real truth from time to time.

As to gay marriage, the state to state thing won't really matter much anyway. If a gay couple moves from NY to KY, KY might not recognize that marriage, but it won't matter much, most of the advantages that married couples enjoy come at a federal level anyway. KY laws can't hurt much, except for state tax filing on a yearly basis.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

As to gay marriage, the state to state thing won't really matter much anyway. If a gay couple moves from NY to KY, KY might not recognize that marriage, but it won't matter much, most of the advantages that married couples enjoy come at a federal level anyway. KY laws can't hurt much, except for state tax filing on a yearly basis.

I would respectfully submit that your post makes assumptions and conclusions that are not correct. Keep in mind that the vast majority of our laws, rules, and ordinances do not originate from the federal government. Over all local control, local beliefs, and local standards still rule the day.

Kentucky, South Carolina, and many other states will not grant full faith and credit to the homosexual marriage laws of other jurisdictions. Kentucky is not California. South Carolina is not Massachusetts. And, I am quite thankful for that.

[TheRealThing]

No moron, there are more than one founding father, that had different religious beliefs. Some were Christians, some Deists, and some believed in other versions of god. Mutiple founding fathers, with different beliefs, not a single founder believing in mutiple gods. Of course, you knew what I meant, but couldn't help but to try to twist my meaning. I see you've used pantheists a couple of times today, or the last two days. Google taught you a new word, I wouldn't over use it like the last word you discovered, lemmings.

Lemmings? You know, if you're going to have any shot at making a dialogue the least bit interesting for me, you'll have to at least use your own material. You have said time and again that you believe the founding fathers were deists. And further, that just so happens to be the side of the argument that you line up on as well. Deists, the last time I checked, believe there is only one god who created everything and then just stepped back to let creation sort out all the kinks. Now you've adopted a many god argument, pantheism, to help you to side step the obvious reference to God I provided in a founding document.

Changing the subject, insults and other forms of diversion won't work for you in this conversation. Many liberals try to couch their contempt for the precepts of God in an intellectual argument. And in my experience, every time they are cornered intellectually, they invariably resort to some form of personal attack which has the effect of making folks forget what was being discussed.

[TheRealThing]

I would respectfully submit that your post makes assumptions and conclusions that are not correct. Keep in mind that the vast majority of our laws, rules, and ordinances do not originate from the federal government. Over all local control, local beliefs, and local standards still rule the day.

Kentucky, South Carolina, and many other states will not grant full faith and credit to the homosexual marriage laws of other jurisdictions. Kentucky is not California. South Carolina is not Massachusetts. And, I am quite thankful for that.

RV wants the federal government to force the folks of this land to accept gay marriage, abortion on demand, the entire social justice gambit in fact. The reason is that the natives have become somewhat restless, having tasted a certain level of victory for some of the items on the liberal agenda, they've now grown impatient and unrealistic.

Liberals think declaring victory before it happens across the board, is the quick silver solution for instant gratification. That's why they walk around figuratively insisting the world is flat, hoping enough lemmings will line up behind them.

[TheRealVille]

Lemmings? You know, if you're going to have any shot at making a dialogue the least bit interesting for me, you'll have to at least use your own material. You have said time and again that you believe the founding fathers were deists. And further, that just so happens to be the side of the argument that you line up on as well. Deists, the last time I checked, believe there is only one god who created everything and then just stepped back to let creation sort out all the kinks. Now you've adopted a many god argument, pantheism, to help you to side step the obvious reference to God I provided in a founding document.

Changing the subject, insults and other forms of diversion won't work for you in this conversation. Many liberals try to couch their contempt for the precepts of God in an intellectual argument. And in my experience, every time they are cornered intellectually, they invariably resort to some form of personal attack which has the effect of making folks forget what was being discussed.

Let me go slow. No, I'm not bringing up pantheism. I said there were multiple founding fathers that believed in different types of religion, not multiple gods for each father. You really have to try pretty hard to be as big of an idiot as you seem to be.

[TheRealVille]

I would respectfully submit that your post makes assumptions and conclusions that are not correct. Keep in mind that the vast majority of our laws, rules, and ordinances do not originate from the federal government. Over all local control, local beliefs, and local standards still rule the day.

Kentucky, South Carolina, and many other states will not grant full faith and credit to the homosexual marriage laws of other jurisdictions. Kentucky is not California. South Carolina is not Massachusetts. And, I am quite thankful for that.

But where it really counts, in federal perks for marriage, they will receive those no matter where they live. On their federal tax return, if they were married in NY, and living in KY, they are still married, as far as the feds are concerned. They will still receive the federal tax breaks for a married couple.

[TheRealVille]

Lemmings? You know, if you're going to have any shot at making a dialogue the least bit interesting for me, you'll have to at least use your own material. You have said time and again that you believe the founding fathers were deists. And further, that just so happens to be the side of the argument that you line up on as well. Deists, the last time I checked, believe there is only one god who created everything and then just stepped back to let creation sort out all the kinks. Now you've adopted a many god argument, pantheism, to help you to side step the obvious reference to God I provided in a founding document.

Changing the subject, insults and other forms of diversion won't work for you in this conversation. Many liberals try to couch their contempt for the precepts of God in an intellectual argument. And in my experience, every time they are cornered intellectually, they invariably resort to some form of personal attack which has the effect of making folks forget what was being discussed.

I was referring to your over use of the word lemming. In telling you to not over use your new word google taught you, pantheist, I referred back to the other word google taught you, that you over use very much.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

^Which god? Where in any official US document does it mention Jesus? Where, in any official US founding document does it mentio Christianity? How do we know the founders weren't trying to get away from England's Christianity, and found a country on religious freedom, where we get to decide what "god" we serve, individually? Now, there's a thought. Just sayin...


Christians are trying to force your god on the rest of us, through laws. It should be obvious the rest of us aren't going to let it happen.

And non Christians are trying to force their beliefs on Christians, no side is innocent trv. The fact is the gayest state in our country couldn't get a majority to agree on gay marriage but through the courts the whole country will eventually be forced to accept it. That is my only problem here the people spoke and were promptly ignored. I'm not bigoted I could give a shit less about gay marriage however I do get concerned when the will of the people is completely ignored after a statewide vote to settle the issue

[TheRealVille]

And non Christians are trying to force their beliefs on Christians, no side is innocent trv. The fact is the gayest state in our country couldn't get a majority to agree on gay marriage but through the courts the whole country will eventually be forced to accept it. That is my only problem here the people spoke and were promptly ignored. I'm not bigoted I could give a shit less about gay marriage however I do get concerned when the will of the people is completely ignored after a statewide vote to settle the issue

No one is forcing their view on you. Gays marrying does you no harm whatsoever. No one can make you be gay either. The ones that voted in CA now regret it, according to polls. Besides, you can't vote to take away another's rights. It's not voteable.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

But where it really counts, in federal perks for marriage, they will receive those no matter where they live. On their federal tax return, if they were married in NY, and living in KY, they are still married, as far as the feds are concerned. They will still receive the federal tax breaks for a married couple.

To say that the federal "perks" are enough to win the day is to have a rather shallow outlook. While they may get a little bigger income tax refund, the much more relevant issue will be their standard of life while living in Kentucky. Since Kentucky does not recognize them as a "legal couple" and since the majority of their neighbors, unless they live in a homosexual part of town, will not accept them, they will not have numerous rights of association and acceptance afforded to people in normal situations.

The federal tax refund is immaterial. The other issues are major. The ostracism by citizens in traditional marriage states will continue. That is known as the concept of Freedom of Association. That means that no federal law, or any other law, can force citizens to accept other citizens.

[nky]

Funny how 18 months ago President Obama believed that marriage was between a man and a women

[nky]

^I'll wait on those references to Christianity, or Jesus, in founding document, or any official US document stating we are a, or ever was, a Christian nation.

BTW, the word creator you speak of in your reference above, is different for you and me. My "creator" isn't the biblical creator.

US Constitution Article I Section 7
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Looks like someone was trying to keep Holy the Sabbath

[TheRealVille]

US Constitution Article I Section 7
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Looks like someone was trying to keep Holy the Sabbath

Yea, except that's not the sabbath. If you can show just one reference to Jesus, or Christianity, I'll eat crow. BTW, even if they were trying to honor the sabbath, that could be Judaism, since Jesus abolished the sabbath worship. Are we a Jewish nation?

[nky]

so they just wanted to take Sunday off to rest?

[TheRealVille]

so they just wanted to take Sunday off to rest?

There are lots of secular places that take Sunday off.

[TheRealVille]

Maybe you guys should look up "nature's god", since that is the god it references in official documents. See where that comes from.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yea, except that's not the sabbath. If you can show just one reference to Jesus, or Christianity, I'll eat crow. BTW, even if they were trying to honor the sabbath, that could be Judaism, since Jesus abolished the sabbath worship. Are we a Jewish nation?

If they were wanting to honor the Jewish sabbath, would the reference not have been to Saturday and not Sunday? Most people who fled to the Americas to escape religious persecution were Christians. That seems like the most likely reason that the Constitution mentions Sunday and not one of the other six days of the week. More often than not, the simplest, most obvious, and most logical explanation is the correct one.

[TheRealVille]

If they were wanting to honor the Jewish sabbath, would the reference not have been to Saturday and not Sunday? Most people who fled to the Americas to escape religious persecution were Christians. That seems like the most likely reason that the Constitution mentions Sunday and not one of the other six days of the week. More often than not, the simplest, most obvious, and most logical explanation is the correct one.

Where is Sunday a Christian sabbath? Or, were a lot of them deists? It seems some that were involved in the founding were.

[Hoot Gibson]

Where is Sunday a Christian sabbath? Or, were a lot of them deists? It seems some that were involved in the founding were.

Blue laws, which were written in recognition of Sunday being widely recognized as "the Lord's day" were common in this country well into the 1970s and there are still examples of them being in effect. To deny this fact and suggest that Sunday is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution as some sort of coincidence (or in recognition of the Jewish sabbath, which is not even observe on Sunday) is foolish, RV. Never let facts get in the way of an argument.

[TheRealVille]

Blue laws, which were written in recognition of Sunday being widely recognized as "the Lord's day" were common in this country well into the 1970s and there are still examples of them being in effect. To deny this fact and suggest that Sunday is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution as some sort of coincidence (or in recognition of the Jewish sabbath, which is not even observe on Sunday) is foolish, RV. Never let facts get in the way of an argument.

Does the Sunday thing make America an official Christian nation? Is Christianity our official religion?

[TheRealThing]

Let me go slow. No, I'm not bringing up pantheism. I said there were multiple founding fathers that believed in different types of religion, not multiple gods for each father. You really have to try pretty hard to be as big of an idiot as you seem to be.

Go as slow as you want, you'll still be guilty of dodging reality. And I see your propensity for resorting to insults in lieu of reason on display yet again.

[TheRealVille]

Were the founders, like Jefferson, ok with this "Christian" nation? What about the establishment clause. Did the founders not really mean this? What about the treaty of Tripoli? Was that a lie?

[TheRealVille]

Go as slow as you want, you'll still be guilty of dodging reality. And I see your propensity for resorting to insults in lieu of reason on display yet again.

When you learn to read things as they are written, and not intentionally, or stupidly, twist them into a wrong meaning, maybe I'll not insult you. I made it very plain I wasn't referring to pantheism in the original post. You either twisted, or aren't very smart. Maybe there is an honest reason you ended up in a support trade. Maybe it really isn't your fault.