If you accept the idea often presented in these threads that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy, and that the "religious right" are a class of people who are haters, shooting abortionists and are as Rosie says, more dangerous than the Muslim terrorists, then please explain something.

We lost the election. We tried hard, but we still lost.

So where are the right-wing nutcase riots? Where is all the protesting and looting?

There are protests in San Francisco, but wait! Those are not right-wing protestors. Those are people who are protesting what the majority voted for which happened to be reflective of Christian moral values.

There was some public speculation about the possibility of riots if Obama wasn't elected.
Ophra quipped that if he had lost she would have been in the hospital getting an IV.

So the absence of riots seems so out of character for the righties, those hating, bigoted, terroristic righties, many of whom happen to also be Chrisitans.

They were all sent to those secret camps to be retrained into productive liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

There are protests in San Francisco, but wait! Those are not right-wing protestors. Those are people who are protesting what the majority voted for which happened to be reflective of Christian moral values.

---

Hello Gal:

I never said that stuff... But, I WILL argue with you, of course...

I agree, that passing an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage IS a Christian value. It's just not an AMERICAN value. American values are inclusive, not exclusive.

Besides, it's unconstitutional. The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority - even a minority of ONE. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees EQUAL rights... That means, that ANYTHING that you have the right to do, EVERYBODY else also has those rights.

It couldn't be any clearer.

excon

Where in the constitution does it say that marriage is a right?

Eventually the gay marriage issue will have to be resolved at the Federal level. Although each state can issue contracts the Constitution has what is called a "full faith and credit " clause.
The clause says that contracts recognized in one state must be honored in all states. This idea that one state can issue gay marriage licenses but others don't will not survive Federal Constitutional scrutiny .

That is why DOMA was passed .Efforts to creat a Federal Constitution amendment banning same sex marriage failed to receive the two-thirds majority of both houses required to send a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the states for ratification.
Lawsuits will continue to be filed in every state based on California and Connecticut decisions and the "full faith ..."clause. Eventually SCOTUS will have to decide. When that happens ;with the current makeup of the court ;Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens, who have voted in favor of gay rights claimants in every gay rights case they have considered, will vote for the right to same-sex marriage.But a majority would vote against. When President -elect Obama changes the make-up of the court there will be a majority in favor of same sex marriage . Elections have consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Where in the constitution does it say that marriage is a right?

---

Hello in:

Where? The same place where it says that owning a fork is a right too. You can look in several places to find these passages... As I mentioned, the Fourteenth Amendment is one...

However, the Constitution doesn't LIST rights. It only LISTS the things GOVERNMENT can't do, and tells us that EVERYTHING NOT listed IS what you can do. That's found in the Tenth Amendment. As a matter of fact, the founders were worried that if they DID list rights, people like you would see that certain things were NOT listed, and those would be illegal. So, they specifically said, that ALL those things NOT listed are powers (rights) that belong to the people.. I don't think it can be more clear.

THAT Amendment says that you can own and possess a fork. I know it doesn't SAY so specifically, (and that's the key), but there's no question that you HAVE that right. You DO believe that you won't be sent to jail for owning a fork, don't you?? It's the same Amendment where gay marriage (or just plain marriage) is ALSO a right.

excon

PS> (edited) Sorry. I was wrong. It's the Ninth Amendment which allows you to possess a fork. It's the Tenth Amendment which forces the States to allow you to possess a fork.

EX

Marriage a religious institution - therefore government has no business ala the 1st amendment -

Homosexuals can have equal legal rights - civil unions.

What they want is to force change of religious doctrine to validate that homosexuality is not a sin.

It went to vote and the majority spoke.

If America is so "inclusive" what of the KKK or mass murderers or child molesters?

I won't be a lemming to the "tolerance" of everything [ except traditional Christian values ] movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Marriage a religious institution - therefore government has no business ala the 1st amendment.....If America is so "inclusive" what of the KKK or mass murderers or child molesters?

---

Hello again, in:

And, if the government didn't grant specific LEGAL RIGHTS to married people, I would agree with you. It's a religions institution, and the government SHOULDN'T have any business with it - BUT THEY DO!! That IS the point!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Homosexuals can have equal legal rights - civil unions.

---

Separate but equal, ISN'T equal, per Brown v Board of Education - a Supreme Court Ruling that I'm sure you're not familiar with. You're not going to win any legal argument with me.

The rest of your post is pretty stupid and doesn't deserve a comment, except to say that it's apparent you equate gay people with mass murderers. Poor girl.

excon

How can you equate gay with black?

inclusive is your term

most Americans, do have the common sense to draw a line and make a judgement as to social values. At what point do you draw the line by inclusiveness?

Note, I do not believe in gay marriage because marriage is religious. As to rights of citizens - I think gays do have and should have equal right - I am not against that. Also, as you believe, the government should get out of our bedrooms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

How can you equate gay with black?

---

Hello again, in:

Both are groups of citizens who are (or were) denied the Constitutional rights that you enjoy.

I don't care what the reason IS for their exclusion. I only care that they're a group of citizens who're excluded.

You wish to exclude them for religious reasons. That's fine. Exclude them from your church and/or your heart. But you cannot exclude them from rights that you, yourself enjoy.

To do so, would be unChristianlike.

excon

I'm not for gay marriage first off.
But I am for women having multiple husbands and men having multiple wives. They will just have to decide which kind of family they wish to join. Now that could be a real head scratcher for some people. Do I want to be the main woman with a bunch of do nothing husbands each sitting intheir own recliner with their own TV remote watching their own TV deciding who is going to go on a beer run for the rest of the hubbies OR...
Do I want to be the main man basking amongst all his wonderful wives who love to shop and have multiple kids and wonder just how I am going to support all these mouths every month.

Gee, it's going to be very hard to decide if we can vote "multiple spouse marriages" instead of gay marriages just how many wives or husbands we can have... not to mention just how many kids can we ultimately have.

Hello People:

What's missing here is Constitutional blindness. What's present here is personal bias.

Did you ever see the statue of Justice? You know, the semi-naked chick with the scale in one hand and a blindfold on. The blindfold isn't a mistake, by the way. It's there to signify BLIND justice. You should try it on.

If you did, you wouldn't SEE gay people. You wouldn't SEE black people. You'd only see a groups of citizens who are denied their rights.

So, it's not a matter of being FOR homosexuality or against it. It's not a matter of supporting BLACK people or not. It's a matter of equality. Nothing more. Nothing less.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

Both are groups of citizens who are (or were) denied the Constitutional rights that you enjoy.

I don't care what the reason IS for their exclusion. I only care that they're a group of citizens who're excluded.

You wish to exclude them for religious reasons. That's fine. Exclude them from your church and/or your heart. But you cannot exclude them from rights that you, yourself enjoy.

To do so, would be unChristianlike.

excon

---

So citizens don't have these rights? I mean heterosexual illegal aliens can't marry?

You mistake that because I don't believe in gay marriage - per the Bible - that I would EXCLUDE them.

Christianity is one of the most INCLUSIVE - Jesus came for sinners - and we all are. Myself, homosexuals, murderers etc... [ and yes a sin is a sin ] How could I exclude them if I myself am a sinner? The question is that homosexuals want a religious organization to believe as they do regarding sin. I've been divorced and am remarried. My second marriage could not be in a church because of my divorce. Did I protest the church and try to change their doctrinal views. No. Do I try to justify to the church or God that my sins like pride or anger, lust , greed etc... should be declassified as sins and into acceptable behaviors and traits? No - I confess these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

So citizens don't have these rights? I mean heterosexual illegal aliens can't marry?

---

Hello again, in:

You piquéd my interest, so I checked it out. To apply for a marriage license, one needs to present a drivers license. I can't find any requirement in any state for a birth certificate.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the states of North Carolina, California, Virginia, Tennessee, Utah and Texas allow illegal immigrants to get a driver license.

Therefore, I suggest that illegal immigrants can, INDEED, get legally married. But, of course, they're NOT citizens, so the comparison doesn't work.

excon

If the gubment would get the hell out of marriage, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm with excon; it's about rights, not gay/straight. Not even moral/immoral. It's rights/no rights.

You guys neatly hijacked the thread. (Smile)

My point was either misunderstood or ignored. Please go back and read it again, OK?

It's relation to gay marriage was only incedental.

Hello Gal:

Yeah, shame on me.

excon

Looks like I'm going to have to use a sledge hammer to drive a tack.

When the libs lose, they get angry and a lot of them burn and loot.

When conservatives lose, we gripe and then get on with our lives.

What do you think makes the difference?

"So the absence of riots seems so out of character for the righties, those hating, bigoted, terroristic righties, many of whom happen to also be Chrisitans."

My, they sure have a way of changing the subject now don't they?
It's all proaganda, that's all. If you call them on it they call you names. They can't stand the fact that America was founded as a Christian nation. They see that as a threat to their intended deciet that corrupts all aspects of Christian life. They can't see that some things are just wrong and they hate us for fighting for our values. A nation without GOD is lost. We are losing our way and fast.

A Nation without God is lost hey?? Which God Mag?