Gay Marriage

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by MacG

Hey All,

Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

MacG

The reality is that... unless we apply a "God-qualifier" to any/every law contrived or implemented, it will at best be unfair and at worst (and most grievously) UNCONS***UTIONAL, according to our U.S. Cons***ution. Certainly, relatively-few 'heterosexual' people... would desire for DIVORCE laws to be subjected to such a 'qualification'.

I due time, the California "Proposition 18" will be tested/examined before the American people in the highest court(s) of this land.

I'm certain many properly and eagerly await that time.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

The reality is that... unless we apply a "God-qualifier" to any/every law contrived or implemented, it will at best be unfair and at worst (and most grievously) UNCONS***UTIONAL, according to our U.S. Cons***ution. Certainly, relatively-few 'heterosexual' people... would desire for DIVORCE laws to be subjected to such a 'qualification'.

I due time, the California "Proposition 18" will be tested/examined before the American people in the highest court(s) of this land.

I'm certain many properly and eagerly await that time.

I think the Supreme Court will turn it down. There would be some serious problems by nationalizing it, it would affect our relationship with other countries, and it would put a larger strain on INS, and INS needs some serious reform already. I know, I married a foriegner. I think it better that the individual states decide on their own. Legislation should not be coming from the bench anyways, the will of the people of California turned it down.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I think the Supreme Court will turn it down.

We'll see, but law/politics are not so predictable, in my mind. I hope that the Supreme Court will set a precedent that ends the legal wrangling over the human rights of ****sexual people, once and for all in America.

There would be some serious problems by nationalizing it, it would affect our relationship with other countries, and it would put a larger strain on INS, and INS needs some serious reform already.

Let those nations get over it. Human rights matter MOST. TO me, immigration is a mostly separate issue.

I know, I married a foriegner.

It will likely all be worked through/out, just as it was in your case.

I think it better that the individual states decide on their own.

I do not agree, but I see your point.

Legislation should not be coming from the bench anyways, the will of the people of California turned it down.

There are no valid reasons to discriminate against ****sexual people, as many would have it. To me, the Cons***ution speaks more clearly on this than many individuals states do. Even so, we shall see what comes of the many court cases and various legislation in the years ahead.

The effects of Prop-18 upon the people of California and the nation, are capricious and arbitrary (in reality); it will be challenged for some time.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

Let those nations get over it. Human rights matter MOST. TO me, immigration is a mostly separate issue.

Human rights in those other countries do matter, and so our relationship could severly affect any human rights victories we have won so far. The ****sexuals in our country fair a lot better than in the Middle East and elsewhere. And if you want to see how we meddle in foriegn affairs, and the lessons learned from it, I suggest you read about how the CIA helped in Iran, and how that seriously backfired. If you want America to be viewed even more as a society of infidels, thereby causing more of a religious conservative backlash within Islam nations, I think it would be tragic toward the progress we have made for women in those countries we have liberated. I think there are more human rights violations worldwide against women than against ****sexuals, because ****sexuality is a very minor grouping and also you should be concerned with the human rights violations against women, because where they progress with them, the ****sexuals have hope in progress also. If anything, it is best settle on a state by state basis. Small town America does not need some city slicker to tell them how to run their business, and vice versa.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Human rights in those other countries do matter, and so our relationship could severly affect any human rights victories we have won so far.

Everything is 'connected' somehow; but to say that we should prohibit ****sexuals the relationships they do have rights to (in America), because of human rights concerns abroad, isn't very significant.

The ****sexuals in our country fair a lot better than in the Middle East and elsewhere.

A LOT OF THINGS are far-better for Americans than those in other nations. We already know that.

And if you want to see how we meddle in foriegn affairs, and the lessons learned from it, I suggest you read about how the CIA helped in Iran, and how that seriously backfired.

You are talking about affecting this other nations; I've been talking about "America"; didn't you notice that?

If you want America to be viewed even more as a society of infidels, thereby causing more of a religious conservative backlash within Islam nations, I think it would be tragic toward the progress we have made for women in those countries we have liberated.

We've sucked up many criticisms for less-valid reasons; allowing ****sexual people to marry is America, bears little upon the choices in many of the nations you are mentioning. Even so, we don't need more excuses, to keep discriminating against ****sexual people here.

I think there are more human rights violations worldwide against women than against ****sexuals, because ****sexuality is a very minor grouping and also you should be concerned with the human rights violations against women, because where they progress with them, the ****sexuals have hope in progress also.

(I addressed your concerns above; those are generally separate issues.)

If anything, it is best settle on a state by state basis.

I do NOT agree; and we differ on that.

Small town America does not need some city slicker to tell them how to run their business, and vice versa.

I think some of the greatest problems are with small-mind America, and that has nothing to do with the population of any particular geographic location.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

I think some of the greatest problems are with small-mind America, and that has nothing to do with the population of any particular geographic location.

Austin Canes, I would call your bold quote an inappropriate slur of the people in the mid-west and the south. Small town America is what keeps your city slicker grocery stores stocked and well feed. It is also a back-bone of the most patriotic people I have ever the pleasure to serve with in the Marines and in the Army. Those would be "fighting" words, and while I am a peaceful man, it does not mean that I am not prone to temptations.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Austin Canes, I would call your bold quote an inappropriate slur of the people in the mid-west and the south.

And I would say that you are being overly-sensitive and missing my point. I'm not particularly talking about the people/regions you mentioned. You are quite mistaken.

Small town America is what keeps your city slicker grocery stores stocked and well feed.

I understand the general view of small-town America, and it isn't necessarily closed-minded or bigoted; this isn't 1940. I live in a smaller conservative place; I understand the reasonable values of such people as you refer to.

Not all the "city-slickers" reside and/or operate in the 'cities'; people are people... no matter wherever you go.

It is also a back-bone of the most patriotic people I have ever the pleasure to serve with in the Marines and in the Army.

I have performed substantial military service myself, and I'm proud to say that the best-of-the-best come from ALL OVER America.

Those would be "fighting" words, and while I am a peaceful man, it does not mean that I am not prone to temptations.

BE PEACEFUL and be disciplined; understand, rather than striking out in foolish anger (as many do these days).

I'm not here to be against you personally, but to share what my views, beliefs and vision with you as a fellow American.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

I have performed substantial military service myself, and I'm proud to say that the best-of-the-best come from ALL OVER America.

I am from Seattle, Washington and joined the service at the MEPS station in Seattle. The best of the best do come from ALL OVER America, but from my interaction with others in the military... coming from a percentage of the population of each state. I would say that the small town America or perhaps demographicallys speaking "red county" country is more supportive of the troops. I left Seattle behind and moved to Tennessee, to stay; tree huggers in Washington can be fairly emotional and angry with troops, but they are ******** of the soldier's plight, and the worst ones misplace their anger onto the troops rather than on congress that sent them. Some of their "ideals" are so high minded, as though if we are peaceful with the terrorists countries that somehow those dictators are going to see the light and turn their guns into plowshares. What naivete! I thought this sort of criticism stuck more to idealism of Christianity, but the roles are now reversed.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I am from Seattle, Washington and joined the service at the MEPS station in Seattle. The best of the best do come from ALL OVER America, but from my interaction with others in the military... coming from a percentage of the population of each state.

I would say that the small town America or perhaps demographicallys speaking "red county" country is more supportive of the troops.

That may be true, but some of "red" mindset, isn't what the troops are actually about. So, what many troops views as being 'supportive', is often objective. I've been around military people most of my life, and I know there is are variety of moral values and political views represented amongst them.

I left Seattle behind and moved to Tennessee, to stay; tree huggers in Washington can be fairly emotional and angry with troops, but they are ******** of the soldier's plight, and the worst ones misplace their anger onto the troops rather than on congress that sent them.

One guy I knew was from Seattle, he went back there (after getting out)... and stayed supportive of the military for the remainder of his life; he was very fond of his military service and experience; he was one of the best troops I'd ever known.

There were many others I know and have known from big cities and small towns (red/blue); and without any doubt, I realize that there are great soldiers with diverse viewpoints and values in America's Armed Forces. I'm not so concerned that they come from any particular background, as long as they do the *** and do it well.

Some of their "ideals" are so high minded, as though if we are peaceful with the terrorists countries that somehow those dictators are going to see the light and turn their guns into plowshares. What naivete! I thought this sort of criticism stuck more to idealism of Christianity, but the roles are now reversed.

Well, I cannot answer for every person skating near the fringe (I tend to discount the words and ways of extremists of any type); it's not prudent to regard HYPE and irrationality to a significant degree.

Do it for too long, and you just end up 'loony'.