a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...


[ . . . ]

The constitution does not have to address marriage in order for it to
guarantee the benefits of marriage to gays.

Sure it would have to in order to do that. And it doesn't.

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).

The government is one thing and the Constitution is something else. Ann
Coulter was probably right when she said 75% of what the government (or
the Congress) does is unconstitutional.

Read the Tenth Amendment, take a good look at all the things the
government is meddling in, and tell me you think she's wrong about that.

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.

It seems "perfectly logical and obvious" to you BECAUSE you are not a
lawyer. You can't just make things up and say that's what the
Constitution is all about when it doesn't say any such thing. Well, you
can, and you do, but when you do it doesn't mean anything, it's just
nonsense.

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.

Read the 10th Amendment, Bill.

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.

You're wrong because you assume that anything not prohibited by the
Constitution must be legal and permissible. As I pointed out to the other
fellow, if that were true then rape and murder would be legal and
permissible, since the Constitution does not prohibit either.

Forget your "Spirit of the document," which is hooey, just read the
document itself. And especially read the 10th Amendment.

Again: only one-tenth of the states, mostly small ones in the liberal
northeast, recognize same-sex marriage, and the federal government does
not recognize it either. Neither has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
favor of it, even though they have produced some goofy liberal rulings on
other subjects. Now Bill, those FACTS completely and easily trump all
your unsupported opinions and notions on the subject.

That's not what I said. I said the constitution permits anything that does
not infringe on the rights of others.

It does no such thing, nor is it the place of the Constitution to do that.

Again: the Constitution is in the main an outline for government, and in its
main body does not concern itself with anyone's rights. Only in the Bill of
Rights and some other amendments does it do that, and nowhere does it say it
"permits anything that does not infringe on the rights of others."

Murder and rape infringe on the rights of others, so they are not
permitted.

They are not prohibited in the Constitution.

Gays marrying do not infringe on the rights of others, so that is
permitted. And read the ninth amendment while you're at it......

The Ninth Amendment is not the "anything goes" clause that you and some
others seem to think it is. The Ninth Amendment is ONLY in there because
some of the representatives at the convention strongly objected to the first
eight amendments on the grounds that by listing certain rights they might
disparage others, and so "enlarge the powers" of the federal government,
which enlargement they were absolutely against.

These representatives DID NOT WANT a Bill of Rights included in the
Constitition AT ALL, precisely because for that reason. The Ninth Amendment
was written to satisfy this objection, and for no other reason.

[Trying this again, to see if I can get around the formatting
problem that sometimes occurs...]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

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.

Well put! Thanks. (I just hope the Supreme Court can see the issue
this directly and logically...)
--DR

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Remmy Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:10:39 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:


Marriages should always be gay, and in my experience they generally
are.
Lots of rice throwing, a bouquet tossing, and reception afterward
with
pretty girls in pastel dresses lining up to be photographed with the
principals etc., then eating, drinking and dancing afterward.
Nothing
could be gayer than all that, none of the gay people are denied
anything
and it all works out very well.


It was not so long ago that being gay meant just that. This PC
business
can drive you nuts.

It sure can. Of all the words that could have been chosen as slang for
homosexual, why "gay"? That has effectively taken the word out of
circulation as far as its original meaning is concerned. And that is
annoying.


The concept of "Politically Correct" was invented to try to teach
respect
to those who do not know how to respect others. Unfortunately they
cannot
even respect the concept of respect. They now deserve none in return.


Your theory is interesting, but lacks substance.

Just about everything he says lacks substance. I was just plonking him
when I saw by his header he's our old pest, the P&S troll, the Troll of a
Thousand Names. I shouldn't have bothered because he never runs out of
names. Usually I can identify his posts in the first few words and just
don't read further than that, but this time he slipped past me.

Some things make sense. Changing workman to worker.
The concept of PC is pure bull****, carried to the extreme and used by
"professional" members of certain minorities to line theiir pockets.
e.g. the term "African American," as applied to folks who have black
skin. If you have any close friends from Jamaica, who are black, just
ask them how they feel about the term.

Yes. Also, there are many white Americans whose families came from Africa
where they had been for many generations, who are just as much "African
American" as most blacks -- very few of whom in this country are 100%
Negro. And of course most Egyptians and other North Africans are not
Negroes. It's a silly term, "African American," perhaps fashionable on
the theory that the more syllables, the greater the importance.

There was an unsuccessful attempt to change "manhole' to "people hole."
the attempt was unsuccessful because nobody could figure out how to make
money from championing the change.

For an interesting article on the subject see:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...cally_cor.html

chuckle

Good piece.


How about changing "Mail man" to "Mail person"....Oh wait. It should be
"Person person" shouldn't it?

Technically I think the correct term is now "mail carrier," which gets
around that problem. But of course most people still call them mailmen.

In my case, my mailman is a woman. Since "mailwoman" or "mail lady" are too
silly sounding to use, most people in this apartment house just call her
Barbara.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050522015797157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-05 21:43:14 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"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.

G. Gordon Liddy had an interesting comment on this. He said that being a
convicted felon (after Watergate) he couldn't own a gun, "but my wife
owns a
gun -- and she keeps it on my side of the bed."

That might work in Florida, or Virginia. In California the convicted felon
cannot have access to a firearm.
...but I don't think Liddy, or Mrs. Liddy visit California packing.

How exactly would that be enforceable, I wonder?

Suppose you had a large household which included one convicted felon. Then
none of the perfectly innocent and law-abiding folks there could own a gun
either? . . . I suppose if they have one of those silly laws about all
firearms being kept in a locked safe that might take care of it, but then
again it might not. Logically the key to the gun safe would have to be
locked up too, and then the key to THAT locked up, and so on ad infinitum.
"Jane, wake up! There are men breaking in downstairs! Quick, where's the key
to the key to the key to the . . . "

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050605073729560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-06 01:04:16 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


[ . . . ]

BTW, I see you responded to the P&S troll.

I did that too, inadvertently. I usually catch the Troll of a Thousand Names
within his first few words and read no further, but once in a great while he
does manage to slip through.

"Steve House" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:57:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


...

There is natural, rational change and there is silly change for the
sake
of fad.


LOL so Neil you believe homosexuality is a "fad"!

Not homosexuality, Stephanie, same-sex marriage.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and that will
probably
continue for as long as there are people.


And just exactly what is the interest of the State in denying gay's
the right to marry their loved ones while permitting straights the
right to do so? I suspect that deep down the real reason
conservatives oppose the practice is that it effectively means that
the State is acknowledging that homosexuality is morally equal to
heteroexuality and not an "abnormal perversion and anathema to God" as
they wish to believe and have the law confirm.

Homosexuality has been regarded as a perversion in most cultures for many
centuries, and the law has often reflected that. That's all. But certainly
you can look for "deep down real reasons" if you find any entertainment in
doing so.

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

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.

Well put! Thanks. (I just hope the Supreme Court can see the issue
this directly and logically...)

Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty Dumptyism
(or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which effectively amounts to
the same thing), they will not.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050607223480278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-06 06:54:01 -0700, Savageduck
said:

On 2010-05-06 06:16:27 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:




How exactly would that be enforceable, I wonder?

Suppose you had a large household which included one convicted felon.
Then
none of the perfectly innocent and law-abiding folks there could own a
gun
either? . . . I suppose if they have one of those silly laws about all
firearms being kept in a locked safe that might take care of it, but
then
again it might not. Logically the key to the gun safe would have to be
locked up too, and then the key to THAT locked up, and so on ad
infinitum.
"Jane, wake up! There are men breaking in downstairs! Quick, where's the
key
to the key to the key to the . . . "

As the saying goes, "The law is an ass." ...but that is what we have.

Certainly we(society that is) do not need protection from Liddy, or even
many "rehabilitated" felons. Unfortunately the law paints with a broad
brush, and the price many of these individuals pay for their crime, is a
loss of some of their privileges. That can, and does effect their
families at many levels. I have experience of many career criminals who
ignore these prohibitions, and who have possession of firearms within
days of release from prison. Some are violated on parole, and some engage
in other violent crimes. This slime is the reason Liddy and others are
painted with the same brush.

Your lock analogy to the "matryoshka doll" is apt. However the spouse, or
legal gun owning family member has an obligation, under the law to
restrict assess, or control of the weapon. That is best demonstrated by a
gun safe, which the prohibited individual does not have obvious assess to
by way of key or combination. That is a defensible position for law
enforcement and/or the Courts.

As to easy access in the event of a self defense need, the legal owner
should be the one trained and drilled in rapid access to, and use of the
weapon, including all appropriate use of force laws, not the prohibited
person. Though, after the fact I suppose self defense use could be an
argument, but there will be a DA working on that.

BTW; In California, and I believe in many other States there are laws
relating to storage of firearms accessible to children Cal PC 12035.
In this case "child" means a person under 14 years of age.

Here is some reading regarding what California gun lovers have to endure.
I think you might find it interesting;
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/dwc.pdf

Good grief! Thanks, I'll save that.

Just reading the Section Index at the beginning is appalling.

Skimming it quickly I come upon this gem:
_________________

12020.3. Any person who, for commercial purposes, purchases, sells,
manufacturers, ships, transports, distributes, or receives a firearm, where
the coloration of the entire exterior surface of the firearm is bright
orange or bright green, either singly, in combination, or as the predominant
color in combination with other colors in any pattern, is liable for a civil
fine in an action brought by the city attorney of the city or the district
attorney for the county of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
__________________

Now what the . . . ?!

I must be missing something here. What on earth is the evil and unlawful
thing about a firearm being colored bright green or bright orange? (Bright
pink would be OK, I suppose?)

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050607223480278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-06 06:54:01 -0700, Savageduck
said:

On 2010-05-06 06:16:27 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:




How exactly would that be enforceable, I wonder?

Suppose you had a large household which included one convicted felon.
Then
none of the perfectly innocent and law-abiding folks there could own a
gun
either? . . . I suppose if they have one of those silly laws about all
firearms being kept in a locked safe that might take care of it, but
then
again it might not. Logically the key to the gun safe would have to be
locked up too, and then the key to THAT locked up, and so on ad
infinitum.
"Jane, wake up! There are men breaking in downstairs! Quick, where's
the key
to the key to the key to the . . . "

As the saying goes, "The law is an ass." ...but that is what we have.

Certainly we(society that is) do not need protection from Liddy, or even
many "rehabilitated" felons. Unfortunately the law paints with a broad
brush, and the price many of these individuals pay for their crime, is a
loss of some of their privileges. That can, and does effect their
families at many levels. I have experience of many career criminals who
ignore these prohibitions, and who have possession of firearms within
days of release from prison. Some are violated on parole, and some
engage in other violent crimes. This slime is the reason Liddy and
others are painted with the same brush.

Your lock analogy to the "matryoshka doll" is apt. However the spouse,
or legal gun owning family member has an obligation, under the law to
restrict assess, or control of the weapon. That is best demonstrated by
a gun safe, which the prohibited individual does not have obvious assess
to by way of key or combination. That is a defensible position for law
enforcement and/or the Courts.

As to easy access in the event of a self defense need, the legal owner
should be the one trained and drilled in rapid access to, and use of the
weapon, including all appropriate use of force laws, not the prohibited
person. Though, after the fact I suppose self defense use could be an
argument, but there will be a DA working on that.

BTW; In California, and I believe in many other States there are laws
relating to storage of firearms accessible to children Cal PC 12035.
In this case "child" means a person under 14 years of age.

Here is some reading regarding what California gun lovers have to endure.
I think you might find it interesting;
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/dwc.pdf

Good grief! Thanks, I'll save that.

Just reading the Section Index at the beginning is appalling.

Skimming it quickly I come upon this gem:
_________________

12020.3. Any person who, for commercial purposes, purchases, sells,
manufacturers, ships, transports, distributes, or receives a firearm,
where the coloration of the entire exterior surface of the firearm is
bright orange or bright green, either singly, in combination, or as the
predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern, is
liable for a civil fine in an action brought by the city attorney of the
city or the district attorney for the county of not more than ten thousand
dollars ($10,000).
__________________

Now what the . . . ?!

I must be missing something here. What on earth is the evil and unlawful
thing about a firearm being colored bright green or bright orange? (Bright
pink would be OK, I suppose?)

Toy guns are marked with orange and green plastic, such as a thick orange
band around the end of the barrel, so police know the gun is a toy and not
to mistakenly fire on someone who is holding a toy. If real weapons were
colored like that, the police would then think a real weapon is a toy.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...



I don't buy that, and I'm a liberal on social issues. The two
criminals should be treated equally. The reason they committed a
criminal act of this type is not relevant to them becoming a convicted
felon. It may be relevant to the sentence, but not the conviction and
resulting status of a convicted felon.


I agree. I don't think I said the circumstances I outlined should be
considered on the question of whether a crime was comitted. But,
circumstances certainly should be relevant in the determination of whether
certain rights should be restored, which was the context of my comment.

I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon should
or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.

If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why should they
not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.


Most states are having trouble with the current budget in providing
court personnel. There's no room in the budget to hire people to
evaluate convicted felons about whether or not they get the vote,
right to sit on a jury, or ability to run for public office.

I don't see budget as an excuse.

I think we are at the point of agreeing to disagree.


--
Peter