a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...
"Steve House" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 20:34:27 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Judges change with the political winds. Unfortunately, supreme courts do as
well, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports the notion of same-sex
"marriage." And I daresay it never will.

The Constitution does not "support" same-sex marriage nor does it need
to. What is more important is it does not PROHIBIT same sex marriage.
But it does prohibit the Federal and State from enacting laws that
violate fundamental human rights. Since same-sex marriage is not
specifically prohibited by the Constitution or named as something the
States may choose to prohibit, it must be permitted since to prohibit
it violates the basic rights of a segment of the population.

The Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it only deals
with rights the People have given up to the State in order to provide
for a functioning society. If the Constitution doesn't take a certain
right away or grant the State or other governing body the right to
take it away. the People retain it even though it is not explicitly
named. When the Supremes rule something to the effect that same-sex
marriage is constitutional, they are saying that the Constitution does
not permit States to enact laws that exclude it or prohibit it. It
does not mean they have found a dusty forgotten passage permitting it
or have re-written the document to include it. All that is not
prohibited must be permitted.

This is logical, but many people, including judges, may not be
logical when considering gay rights, and may still be affected by
their prejudices when arriving at decisions. It is still widely regarded
as fact by too many that homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual(!),
absurd and unproven as this is, and as much as the preponderance
of evidence indicates that this is not true. The "rub" is, though, that
it is therefore easy for these people to dismiss the rights of
homosexuals since homosexuality is believed by them to be neither
inherent nor real, and they therefore feel justified in not recognizing
gays as being an existing legitimate segment of the population whose
rights are in need of protection. The undermining of the recognition of
this group's existence does appear to be the aim of conservative
religions, right-wing politics, and the just plain bigoted. Gay marriage
hurts no one, and it can help many, but when it comes up before the
Supreme Court, I will not be surprised if it votes 5 to 4 against us,
regardless of your excellent points. Ill will often finds a way to
counter facts and logic, alas...
--DR

I thought I would add a bit of levity here with some videos some may
not have seen the like of yet --

Making fun of Glenn Beck (notice the name of the subject of his tirade ;-)
http://beck.cnnbcvideo.com/?p=2742a1...358708-FqoKtsx

And, my recent award as 2010 Mom of the Year! ;-)
http://news.cnnbcvideo.com/?nid=Oqgb...=Ruether&z=yes

--DR

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons should
be allowed to participate in it. snip

In what State are felons not permitted to marry?

--
Peter
I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights are
available to all non felons......

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose their
rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside from possibly some
under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?

In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to vote.

Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
rights they don't have.

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...
"Steve House" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 20:34:27 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Judges change with the political winds. Unfortunately, supreme courts do
as
well, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports the notion of
same-sex
"marriage." And I daresay it never will.

The Constitution does not "support" same-sex marriage nor does it need
to. What is more important is it does not PROHIBIT same sex marriage.
But it does prohibit the Federal and State from enacting laws that
violate fundamental human rights. Since same-sex marriage is not
specifically prohibited by the Constitution or named as something the
States may choose to prohibit, it must be permitted since to prohibit
it violates the basic rights of a segment of the population.

The Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it only deals
with rights the People have given up to the State in order to provide
for a functioning society. If the Constitution doesn't take a certain
right away or grant the State or other governing body the right to
take it away. the People retain it even though it is not explicitly
named. When the Supremes rule something to the effect that same-sex
marriage is constitutional, they are saying that the Constitution does
not permit States to enact laws that exclude it or prohibit it. It
does not mean they have found a dusty forgotten passage permitting it
or have re-written the document to include it. All that is not
prohibited must be permitted.

This is logical, but many people, including judges, may not be
logical when considering gay rights, and may still be affected by
their prejudices when arriving at decisions. It is still widely regarded
as fact by too many that homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual(!),
absurd and unproven as this is, and as much as the preponderance
of evidence indicates that this is not true. The "rub" is, though, that
it is therefore easy for these people to dismiss the rights of
homosexuals since homosexuality is believed by them to be neither
inherent nor real, and they therefore feel justified in not recognizing
gays as being an existing legitimate segment of the population whose
rights are in need of protection. The undermining of the recognition of
this group's existence does appear to be the aim of conservative
religions, right-wing politics, and the just plain bigoted. Gay marriage
hurts no one, and it can help many, but when it comes up before the
Supreme Court, I will not be surprised if it votes 5 to 4 against us,
regardless of your excellent points. Ill will often finds a way to
counter facts and logic, alas...
--DR

I thought I would add a bit of levity here with some videos some may
not have seen the like of yet --

Making fun of Glenn Beck (notice the name of the subject of his tirade ;-)
http://beck.cnnbcvideo.com/?p=2742a1...358708-FqoKtsx

And, my recent award as 2010 Mom of the Year! ;-)
http://news.cnnbcvideo.com/?nid=Oqgb...=Ruether&z=yes



You have waaay too much time on your hands. :-)

--
Peter

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons
should be allowed to participate in it. snip

In what State are felons not permitted to marry?

--
Peter
I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights are
available to all non felons......

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose their
rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside from possibly some
under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?

In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to vote.

Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
rights they don't have.


They do not lose voting rights in all States.
Even federal gun rights may be restored upon proper application.
Oops! I forgot, you don't read anything I write. Too bad you are resistant
to learning.

--
Repeat bluster enough times so that someone may believe it.
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message ...
"David Ruether" wrote in message ...

I thought I would add a bit of levity here with some videos some may
not have seen the like of yet --

Making fun of Glenn Beck (notice the name of the subject of his tirade ;-)
http://beck.cnnbcvideo.com/?p=2742a1...358708-FqoKtsx

And, my recent award as Mom of the Decade! ;-)
http://news.cnnbcvideo.com/?nid=Oqgb...=Ruether&z=yes

You have waaay too much time on your hands. :-) --
Peter

Um, perhaps so......8^)
Although these clever videos came to me (I didn't make them...;-).
--DR

On Wed, 5 May 2010 14:56:55 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
m...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons should
be allowed to participate in it. snip

In what State are felons not permitted to marry?

--
Peter
I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights are
available to all non felons......

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose their
rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside from possibly some
under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?

In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to vote.

Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
rights they don't have.

Not true. You can still hunt with and own firearms. I spent a season
camping at a hunter's-camp one time that was owned by felons. We had an
interesting discussion on what kinds of firearms they are allowed. They
sold all sorts of fun "toys" in their tourist shop. There are only certain
types of firearms not allowed. The Bill of Rights applies to EVERYONE. I
bet a black-powder burn will hurt just as bad if not more as you are dying.
It just takes a little longer to reload. And crossbows are the only
relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain weapons that can reliably pierce
a flak-jacket. It's handy, and advised, to keep one around should the
government or people like you ever need a lesson. I bought mine from the
above mentioned "felons". All legal.

But then your idiotic comments only partially apply to those that are
willing to obey someone else's opinions (laws). I hear tell that even dead
people have been known to vote.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news
"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Pete
Stavrakoglou
writes
"Chris H" wrote in message
. ..
In message , Pete
Stavrakoglou
writes
wrote in message
...

So you think the constitution allows you to enforce your
religious
beliefs
on other people, just because it doesn't specifically say a
church can't
do this?

Stephanie

Do you believe that your beliefs should be imposed on others? Only
the
beliefs of religious people should not be considered? I am free to
use my
influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
religious
person or not has no bearing on that.

However no religious beliefs should be used to constrain any person
not
of that religion. Also all religions should be treated equally.
(None
of them are real anyway) So the three Middle Eastern religions of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam should hold as much sway as the far
eastern Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, Buddhist etc as the Native American
religions...

Therefor a civil gay marriage would be permissible by the state.
Possibly even multiple partners as practised in Islam and
Christianity.

However I would not expect any faith who does not support the
principal
to give the happy couple the blessing of a religious ceremony. That
is
important. Whilst the religious groups should not impose their
rules on
society likewise, within reason, the reverse should also be true.

The "within reason" is that some religions make sacrifices, others
use
narcotics and some practice child abuse.

BTW Should you want to impose any religious based law on me I am at
liberty to do the same to you. Even if my religion is diametrically
opposed to yours.

Your beliefs are your beliefs, religious or otherwise. By your
measure you
have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone else. You believe
that gay
marriage is OK, you have no right to impose that on anyone who
believes
otherwise.

Agreed. Permitting Gay marriage for those who want it does not impose
it
on those who don't. They can marry some one of the opposite sex or
not
marry at all (but live with one or more partners if they wish or
remain
single).

However banning gay marriage does stop those who want it. And it
therefore restricting them on religious grounds of a religion they
are
not part of.

Permitting gay marriage has no effect on those who don't approve of
it
on religious grounds.

Besides religious people find gay no more offensive than many of us
find
religious zealots who want to ban gay marriage.

All this talk of "permitting" or "banning" misses the point entirely.
Marriage has been -- until quite recently at least -- defined as the
legal union of a man and a woman.

Saying that a cucumber cannot be a cantaloupe does not in any way
violate the rights of the cucumber; it simply recognizes that a
cantaloupe is something very different. It doesn't matter if a liberal
state supreme court rules that a cucumber can legally be a
"cantaloupe"; it still is not a cantaloupe. The hapless citizens of
the referenced state may be forced by law to accept the cucumber as a
"cantaloupe," in any situations in which such acceptance can be
enforced by law, but people in other states and other parts of the
world will still know that it isn't really a cantaloupe and will not
accept it as such.

The same principle applies in the case of same-sex "marriage."

No it does not. The government has redefined "marriage",

Certainly not. Where'd you ever get that idea?

A handful of state supreme courts have redefined "marriage," mostly here
in the looney-liberal northeast. In at least two of those states,
including my own, the majority of the population strenuously objects to
the courts' redefinition. Even in the liberal state of Maine, when the
legislature passed a law allowing for same-sex marriage, there was such
a furious reaction from the people that they held a referendum on it --
and it was REPEALED. For all the other states, as for the federal
government, the definition of "marriage" remains exactly what it has
been for centuries, for millennia in fact.

and now it must be available to all citizens in good standing. - Sorry
about that.....:^)

Save you sorrow, Bill. It's still another silly fad that isn't going
anywhere.

You still don't understand the constitution, or the spirit of the
constitution, do you? It doesn't mater if 299,999,998 people in this
country don't want gays to marry. The other 2 people, (gay people,
presumably) will still have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry. That's
what the constitution is all about. It protects the minority from the
tyranny of the majority.....Get it?

Sure, I get it: You're one of those people who think the Constitution can
be bent, twisted, hammered, stretched and tied into knots in order to
support what you think it SHOULD say instead of what it DOES say.

Nothing in the Constitution addresses marriage at all.

Nothing in the Constitution gives you or anyone else the right to redefine
a commonly used word like "marriage" to suit some goofy political agenda.

The Federal government does not recognize same-sex "marriage" and is
perfectly within its constitutional rights in not doing so (which is more
than can be said for a lot of things the government does).

Nine of out ten of the states do not recognize such a relationship as
"marriage" either.

YOU are the one who doesn't understand the Constitution. You seem to think
it can be made the plaything of politically correct screwballs who are
eager to adopt every new p.c. fad that comes along.

The constitution does not have to address marriage in order for it to
guarantee the benefits of marriage to gays. When the government mentioned
marriage in its documents, it automatically redefined it as being a state
that is available to all citizens in good standing. (non felons). This is
generally true of anything, whether mentioned in the constitution or not.
The spirit of the document gives everyone the right to anything as long as
their exercise of that right does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
So the fact that marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean
anything. When marriage was a church ritual, then it was not available to
everyone. But as soon as the government recognized it, and mentioned it in
its documents, (such as the form 1040 tax tables) it then became redefined
as being available to all citizens in good standing. Gays are citizens in
good standing. Therefore, gays have the constitutional right to enter into
that state. This is perfectly logical and obvious to me, and I am not a
lawyer. The guy in Southern California back in the 60's had the
constitutional right to go into the cable TV business, too, even though
cable TV was not mentioned in the constitution either. This is because going
into the cable TV business didn't infringe on the rights of anyone else.
When he comes to your door and asks you if he can run his cable to your
house, you can say, "No!", and slam the door in his face. Neither you, nor
any of your neighbors will suffer from this action. Therefore, he has that
right. If you say, "Yes", and he runs you his cable, your neighbors will not
suffer the loss of any of their rights either. This is why he had the
constitutional right to operate his business, even though no one even
imagined TV existed when the constitution was written. The same is true of
the right of gays to marry. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, so
they have the constitutional right to do it. The constitution does not have
to enumerate every right in the future in order to guarantee them to all
future citizens. (and thank God for that) All such rights are granted
automatically as long as they do not take away any rights of others. This is
what I mean when I speak of the, "Spirit of the document". Tell me how your
rights, or the rights of anyone else are infringed in any way by two gay
people getting married. If you can't do that, then the rights of gays to
marry are automatically guaranteed by the constitution. Now, this wouldn't
be true were marriage strictly a private club's ritual and didn't have
anything to do with government in any way. But it is not. The government has
been screwing with it for a long time now, and has actually incorporated it
into its tax laws, as well as other laws that affect all citizens. So the
religious people can no longer claim it as strictly a private ritual that
has no legal significance and therefore should not be the concern of
government. This is why I can see no way out for you. Logically, you are
forced to accept the rights of gays to marry. Can you give me any logical
reason why I am wrong about this? If so, I will be glad to change my
opinion.

"Jeff Jones" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2010 14:56:55 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
om...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons
should
be allowed to participate in it. snip

In what State are felons not permitted to marry?

--
Peter
I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights are
available to all non felons......

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose their
rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside from possibly
some
under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?

In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to vote.

Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
rights they don't have.

Not true. You can still hunt with and own firearms. I spent a season
camping at a hunter's-camp one time that was owned by felons. We had an
interesting discussion on what kinds of firearms they are allowed. They
sold all sorts of fun "toys" in their tourist shop. There are only certain
types of firearms not allowed. The Bill of Rights applies to EVERYONE. I
bet a black-powder burn will hurt just as bad if not more as you are
dying.
It just takes a little longer to reload. And crossbows are the only
relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain weapons that can reliably pierce
a flak-jacket. It's handy, and advised, to keep one around should the
government or people like you ever need a lesson. I bought mine from the
above mentioned "felons". All legal.

But then your idiotic comments only partially apply to those that are
willing to obey someone else's opinions (laws). I hear tell that even dead
people have been known to vote.

So your claim to my "Idiocy" comes down to a discussion of the definition
of, "firearms". - OK. I stand corrected. There are SOME firearms that are
denied to convicted felons. And voting rights are also restricted. Are you
happy now?

"Jeff Jones" wrote in message
...


Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
rights they don't have.

Not true. You can still hunt with and own firearms. I spent a season
camping at a hunter's-camp one time that was owned by felons. We had an
interesting discussion on what kinds of firearms they are allowed. They
sold all sorts of fun "toys" in their tourist shop. There are only certain
types of firearms not allowed. The Bill of Rights applies to EVERYONE. I
bet a black-powder burn will hurt just as bad if not more as you are
dying.
It just takes a little longer to reload. And crossbows are the only
relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain weapons that can reliably pierce
a flak-jacket. It's handy, and advised, to keep one around should the
government or people like you ever need a lesson. I bought mine from the
above mentioned "felons". All legal.

But then your idiotic comments only partially apply to those that are
willing to obey someone else's opinions (laws). I hear tell that even dead
people have been known to vote.


Some call it Resurrection Day. Others call it Election Day


--
Peter

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...


So your claim to my "Idiocy" comes down to a discussion of the definition
of, "firearms". - OK. I stand corrected. There are SOME firearms that are
denied to convicted felons. And voting rights are also restricted. Are you
happy now?

Not in all states.

--
Peter