Posted on 12/02/2009 10:31:56 PM PST by Freedom2specul8
I agree. Gay marriage has nothing to do with being a RINO. The 9th Amendment guarantees that right unless a state overrides it using the 10th Amendment. It is certainly not addressed in the Constitution making it permissable unless the States act.
It is an absolutely losing issue for conservatives. We should be far more focused on crap that matters like budgets, terrorism, etc.
It just depends on what you call a losing issue. This nation is unlike ANY in all of recorded history, a promise fulfilled. And if you think it is because of what flesh beings are responsible in doing of themselves, then you have NO clue what is at stake. But as history has recorded flesh beings always did seem to believe they just had to do things their way. And as it is Written there is nothing 'new' under the sun.
Let me follow-up and say, the 14th Amendment guarantees rights.
To illustrate the absurdity of the issue, the 24th outlaws poll taxes but is very directed:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Hence, states could actually deny gays the right to vote. That would certainly take care of the gay marriage issue post-haste but is that what people want? No, it is absurd and would never fly.
Before people dive into putting in a gay marriage amendment, keep in mind that the Constitution is not the place to limit freedoms. Past attempts to do that (18th Amendment) have been failures.
Not a RINO. True conservative because I believe in Constitutional rule.
Please explain to me where the Feds have any rights whatsoever on this issue?
How do you plan to reconcile this with the 14th Amendment?
Let me propose a hypothetical. Blacks should not be allowed to marry whites. Now that would have passed in the 50s but is it right?
The founding fathers knew without hesitation WHO was/is in control of unalienable rights and stated without hesitation. The Constitution regardless of those who are either blind or in a state of rebellion is established upon the recognition of where the base unshakable rights of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness originate to each and every individual. These peoples were the most part Christians, and in the infancy of their putting together a document, now so perverted by precedence it is hardly recognizable were blind to the fact that blacks, or even those of the various Indian tribes did not fall under Christian principles.
There is NO comparison to the children of the Heavenly Father regardless of skin color to the perverted acts of self pleasure as being something that is from Him in giving 'life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
As a conservative, I want to go back to the Constitution regardless of the perversions introduced over the last 70 years. Conservatives should focus on what the founding documents mean, not on what we would like to see or not.
Personal desires should not be the goal, a return to fundamentals should be and that means walking away from issues that are best left to deal with in other means.
How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.
I doubt if the Founders would have supported any argument against gay marriage. They were a very Libertarian group and felt like people should have all rights even if we disagreed with what they did.
Stand at the pulpit and shout it to the world how much the act is disagreeable to tenets but to enshrine it in law a) will not work (I cannot see how a Constitutional Amendment on this is feasible), b) will lose ultimately in court, c) puts a blemish on the effort to do so much more with what is wrong with this country.
And exactly what is homosexuality? A God given right? OR one big perverted personal desire, that the Giver of our national and individual blessings and protected covering says is an abomination. You are NOT serious in your quest of returning to the rule of law established initially by the founding fathers IF you advocate the usage of said Constitution to make perverted sex acts as represented of rights. I don't think you fully understand what you are advocating and what you can expect to be if gay marriage becomes standard representation of this nation. There is NO historical precedent that 'survival' and or greatness became of any individual or nation because of how they personally desired to have sex.
And when I read words by peoples that whitewash over what happens to societies that make gaydom as its standard, they are either blind to the reality of history or they do NOT care what they advocate and are part of the problem.
The founders were NOT setting up a monarchy, meaning they knew by the words they used WHO was in control and WHO gave unalienable rights, that NO man/monarch could give or take. And protected perverted acts were NOT on their agenda. NOW the supremes already made sodomy a civil right, think that would be enough to satisfy these that are obsessed/possessed with pleasuring themselves in gutter acts. But NO they want to call what they do a marriage by perverting even the historical meaning of the word and oneness of the word marriage.
See now the Constitution does NOT give power and authority to flesh man to change things set in motion by the Heavenly Father even though there is a lustful march to make the state the god of this world.
So sodomy between a husband and wife, heterosexual, should be outlawed?
Well, I am a history major and have spent a bit of time in that area so I would not make the leap that I am blind to history although others might.
My point was pretty straight-forward but perhaps it bears repeating: this is an absolutely losing issue. Despite what anyone thinks here, by putting it on a pledge/platform you gain zero for it because it will never pass. You tick off a large percent of the population and get nothing for it. It has nothing to do with personal beliefs. I don't give a rip if the churches fight against it from now until eternity, it will lose and that is guaranteed. So you pick a position to hang a flag on and ignore big issues like the Commerce Clause, while fighting over a civil rights thing.
The Christian Right does not view gay marriage as a civil rights issue but that is exactly what it is. Until the 14th Amendment is repealed or a new Amendment is added, this is a right. It has not a darn thing to do with Biblical teaching because that is not the law of this land and has never been upheld by the courts as the basis.
Outlawed? Who is going to know what takes place between a husband and wife? Back to the meaning of husband and wife, that word marriage. The word marriage describes the unification of a man and woman into oneness. And unless one or the other or both are out and about chatting about their oneness who is going to know about what goes on behind closed doors. Conservatives I know have the good common sense to keep their private marital affairs just that private. They sure do not spend their free time advocating means and methods of sexual pleasures at the public square or even the private confines of the local restaurants.
And you earlier said you were conservative. I have no clue what part of history you are majored in, but you are describing what secularmites dish out as acceptable history. Some people will just have to have their faces rubbed into the what the people lust after to learn where it is they should not encourage, entertain, and PUSH.
You are correct gaydom's so called marriage is a losing issue, and what your history lessons have NOT taught you is who it is that has always lost big time when civil societies make their standard gaydomness. And your history lesson have neglected to teach you that Christianity is a reality not a religion. But you do have the unalienable right to ignore, reject, and live exactly as you choose.
What you do NOT have the right to do is to alter the facts and tell me what it is I must accept because I might 'tick' off a large percent of the population. As far as I can tell they are already 'ticked' off and they are practicing sodomy whenever and where ever they can. So don't be telling me this nation is suffering from a lack of freedom to practice sodomy, and all will be well when the 'purists' accept the ways of this world.
So how then do you reconcile a gay relationship that is asexual?
You still have also completely ignored the Constitutional issues that have no easy bypass.
Finally, venture out and watch a great movie called Blade Runner. As society evolves and changes, how do you deal with classes of citizens that do not fit your pre-conception? This is a very dangerous slope and I certainly do not believe that the churches are very good judges for who they protect. Blacks, Jews, Protestants, heretics, anyone who disagreed with a particular leader has been subject to persecution under the banner of Christianity.
As Paine summarized:
“There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice.”
Society will never be gay focused. You seem obsessed with having gays take over when it won’t happen.
What the US brought upon the world is justice for everyone. Don’t even start to compare us to Rome or Greece or even say those societies were homosexual because they weren’t. I doubt if you can name a homosexual focused society in the history of the world. Homosexuality is not normal but it does not mean it is ok to discriminate.
If you feel that gays do not fit into your world view, ignore them, do whatever you wish. There are people who do not like blacks and will do whatever they can to not help them off. People may be relishing the Haiti earthquakes. Doesn’t make it right.
Imagine an island of gay people, doing whatever it is you object to and then that island is wiped out by an earthquake and 500k people are dead. Is that ok? If they are all condemned to hell, isn’t the death toll God’s decision? What about an island of cyborgs? An island of Democrats? An island of atheists?
When the churches (i.e religions) accept the murder of 6 million people, which they did, can we look back and say that this started with small intolerances? Read a bit about the Holocaust and see how it grew from minor complaints about Jews to genocide in a matter of decades.
I have yet to encounter any relationship wherein the individuals say they are 'gay' but have no so called sex. Yet it is very common to have a multitude of same sex friends wherein the subject of 'sex' never comes up in word or action. So you question makes no sense in that the word 'gay' as used in the political environment means 'sex' with whomever of the same gender. It is really not that complicated.
You still have also completely ignored the Constitutional issues that have no easy bypass. Finally, venture out and watch a great movie called Blade Runner. As society evolves and changes, how do you deal with classes of citizens that do not fit your pre-conception? This is a very dangerous slope and I certainly do not believe that the churches are very good judges for who they protect. Blacks, Jews, Protestants, heretics, anyone who disagreed with a particular leader has been subject to persecution under the banner of Christianity. As Paine summarized: “There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice.”
The Constitution was document designed by minds of greater intellect and destiny, to be considering whether or not they were addressing the act of sodomy. You are the one obsessing in inserting that act as a 'right' to be found and protected in the so called 'evolving' breathing and living document.
I do not need to go watch any movie to become familiar with the already primed slimy slope this generation has designed. And your history classes are so far to the left that you have NO clue what that word persecution literally means. Christians IF they are followers of Christ should NOT be expecting to be treated in a better manner than HE. He was perfect, never sinned, and yet He was murdered.
I think you are confusing denominational-ism and Christianity. There is a big difference and all manner of deeds have been done in the name of Christ or as attempt to disparage Him and are against Christ. But there is nothing new about this as things are charting right along exactly as foretold would be.
Oh and we have not even gotten to the reenactment of the days of Noe yet.
Since my youth this society has become absolutely GAY obsessed. Now I cannot get through one day without somebody needing to flaunt they are who they are because of how they need to do sex acts.
The US under the Constitution by design and destiny fulfilled a promise made thousand of years ago. And there is NO greater or perfect judge than the Heavenly Father, as He knows all sides and He knows what the thoughts of each and every individual are. And the most significant part of our Constitution that separates US from every other nation around this globe is that declaration that there are certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness', that NO man/government can take or give.
And through the evolution and self absorption of generations that have followed, or notions that have been planted herein have attempted to steal from US that declaration and take unto themselves what they have NO legal authority to usurp. They intend to make themselves the 'gods' that have power to give and take rights they have no power over.
The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. Gay rights are enshrined in the 9th Amendment and 14th Amendment. You still ignore this simple truth. Don’t take my reading of the Constitution and change it to mean i am altering it. you are doing that.
Ninth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Founders also did not want a Bill of Rights because it assumed that rights had to be guaranteed. they felt all rights were reserved and no right needed enumeration because it was redundant.
The Bible has zero basis in the law of this land. People can take everything they want out of the Bible but advocating a law against a particular group of citizens crosses from theology to our secular system. I have no desire to see this country end up like Iran of today or Europe in the 1300s. We left Europe for a reason and embraced the Enlightenment. No need to go backwards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.