[talaniman]

As people change, so should the laws. We have already removed outdated laws and trying to change the ones on the books that reflect the limits society has deemed too restictive. This is an on going natural progression of people as they evolve. Drugs have been around for as long as man has and no amount of lawmaking or imprisonment will change the fact that it is very lucritive to criminals. (As opposed to getting a real job legally) As we have seen gays are doing what they have been doing for centuries and whether same sex marriage is legal or not, will not stop it from happening. As society changes the laws will change to reflect the tolerance for the rights of others against the abiity to enforce them.

[SSchultz0956]

Why yes, I am saying exactly that. Using your voting example, are you suggesting that giving the vote to african americans and women is a step backwards and the vote should return to white males only? Of course not, it was a progressive decision. There are rules everywhere that reasonable people follow to maintain a safe and respectful society, is this not something you agree with? I don't really understand why you attack me on the facts that there are rules and laws. :confused:

Its not a debate on whether the progressive nature of laws is counter-productive or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with allowing everybody to vote, which I do. It's about the fact that by lawfully sanctioning gay-marriage can and probably will lead to polygamy, child porn acceptance, etc because that is what the extreme leftist interest groups want. You must not be from America because you don't seem to get how interest groups fit into our political system. Furthermore, reasonable people do not maintain a safe and respectful society because these reasonable people more often than not elect representatives that are not so reasonable.

[NeedKarma]

Furthermore, reasonable people do not maintain a safe and respectful society because these reasonable people more often than not elect representatives that are not so reasonable.

If you are referring to Bush then I agree!

[SSchultz0956]

If you are referring to Bush then I agree!

Again, you have proven yourself to not understand America. Bush is as liberal as he is conservative. I mean people like chuck shumer, ted kennedy, newt gingrich, ralph nader, and thelist goes on including most every person elected NOT JUST BUSH!! Stop acting like a far left moonbat and actually consider the words I am typing. Liberals get so caught up with Bush they forget there are 535 other elected politicians in just congress.

[talaniman]

There we go conservatives, liberals ,alcoholics. Everybodies got a name to spread around and beat their morality into the masses outside their group. That's what's wrong with America, too many groups and no real Americans.

[SSchultz0956]

There we go conservatives, liberals ,alcoholics. Everybodies got a name to spread around and beat their morality into the masses outside their group. Thats whats wrong with America, too many groups and no real Americans.

Last I checked America was always about groups of people that unite under the upholding of life, liberty , and property.

[Morganite]

There we go conservatives, liberals ,alcoholics. Everybodies got a name to spread around and beat their morality into the masses outside their group. Thats whats wrong with America, too many groups and no real Americans.

Oh, come on. There is no such animal as a uniform "REAL American."

Americans come in different shapes, sizes, Colours, faiths, political hues, and a host of other discrete characteristics that no one group and no one person can be said with honesty or accuracy to be a "REAL American" that is representative of all other Americans.

The greatest danger to American society are those who have in their minds a profile of what constitutes a "REAL American," and who disrespect all others who stand outside their artificial paradigm.

Time was when the Irish, the Chinese, Roman Catholics, Jews, and non-white, non Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant, etc, were not considered "REAL American," and look at all the troubles that lunatic perspective has caused.

A person has to be some kind of nut not to accept that America, like every other nation under the sun, has many groups each representing their particular interests, and provided that their interests do not include persecuting any other groups they do little harm. Trying to prescribe what constitutes a "REAL American" of necessity distances all those that you believe do not deserve to be considered as "REAL Americans," and that leads to internment (after the Japanese-American WW II model), identification by special clothing or tattoos (after the Nazi anti-Juden model), and all other manifestations that operate on the principle that some people are less eligible to be considered as "REAL American" on grounds more consonant with fascistic-eugenic progroms than with science, sociology, religion, or simple humanitarian principles, etc.

Look at the administration's efforts to bomb and beat their morality and political system into foreign nations, who do not measure up to its "REAL American" democratic model.

America has been called "The Mixing Bowl," but it is to be a salad with its components identifiable in a diverse dish, rather than the muddy color produced by fully mixing all the colours of the rainbow into a uniform drab color.

All Americans should welcome the diversity, because it is diversity that has produced the RICH tapestry of American society, and efforts to "Sovietize" America through Stalinesque imposition of "REAL American" culture is a dangerous step that leads away from freedom and into a slavery that includes forcing government approved, or interest group, cultural and linguistic laws on everyone.

And where then is freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness? Gone to blazes, that's where.


M:eek:RGANITE

[NeedKarma]

Sweet post Marganite. I agree with you.

[Morganite]

Its not a debate on whether the progressive nature of laws is counter-productive or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with allowing everybody to vote, which I do. It's about the fact that by lawfully sanctioning gay-marriage can and probably will lead to polygamy, child porn acceptance, etc because that is what the extreme leftist interest groups want. You must not be from America because you don't seem to get how interest groups fit into our political system. Furthermore, reasonable people do not maintain a safe and respectful society because these reasonable people more often than not elect representatives that are not so reasonable.

I would like to see how you work out "the fact that by lawfully sanctioning gay-marriage can and probably will lead to polygamy, child porn acceptance, etc because that is what the extreme leftist interest groups want."

How can sanctioning one course, lead to sanctioning unrelated courses of action? What evidence do you have that gay married couples are the engineers of polygamy and/or pedophiliac pornography? There might be a link, but I do not know it and you don't explain it. What am I missing?

Whether my position is on the extreme left or not is up for discussion, but my fears are that the far right have a series of agendas that will steal hard-won freedoms from ordinary citizens. The right of Habeus Corpus was wrested from the tyrant and usurper King John to secure the safety of the barons, but the principles is enshrined into the laws of every civilized nation in the world. It is alarming that Americans are willing to give up that right.

Sir Winston Churchill said:

"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free.

A year ago U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in proposing the legislation, said, "It is clear to me from Abu Ghraib backward, forward, and other things we know about, that at times we have lost our way in fighting this war." Few would disagree. "What we are trying to do in a series of amendments," Graham added, "is recapture the moral high ground and provide guidance to our troops."

But destroying habeas corpus will not "recapture the moral high ground" or "provide guidance for our troops." It may, however, throw our troops (and citizens) into a living hell if they're captured by other governments that have chosen to follow our example.

This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.)

Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated).

The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus.

Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:

"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts.

Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime.

King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis," which roughly translates as "I am the Decider!" which is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported by Senate Republicans and five Democrats.

As The New York Times noted in a November 12, 2005 editorial, "according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority [of the Guantanamo concentration camp detainees] should not have been taken prisoner in the first place."

It may well be that the only reason these Republicans are so determined to keep our Guantanamo prisoners incarcerated is to avoid the embarrassment and negative political fallout that would ensue if they were released and told the world's media their stories of false arrest, torture, illegal imprisonment, and hunger strikes.

The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84:

"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:

[Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]

"I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope," and because of our strong commitment to democracy, "the strongest government on earth."

The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.

"The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8:

"The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free."

We must not make the mistake that Jefferson and Hamilton warned us against. Contact your U.S. Senators (the Capitol's phone number is 202 225-3121) and tell them to stop this assault on eight hundred years of legal precedent by leaving our habeas corpus laws intact and quickly moving to ensure that the captives in our Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camps (and other, overseas, secret prisons) have the fundamental human rights of habeas corpus our Supreme Court has already ruled they should be accorded.


M:)

[isha_miranda]

One Voice

Make Poverty History- By Get Things Done

Open to public Lets talk. Corruption, Mismanagement, Poor Governing basically bad politics.
We can make poverty history by get things done on time on figment of the imagination and mission. What is poverty? How do you define poverty? Poverty define as source of powerless and inability, to execute basic needs. It escalates terror, Violence and distraction. The world could ask most powerful nations to eliminate the debts, eliminate the pledge but increase the funding for betterment of man kind. But will that make poverty history? I ask the world, I ask the man kind to observe what we can do from What we have and What we get! The Five Elements are

We must eliminate the waste,

We must eliminate the unproductiveness,

We must eliminate indefensible accountability

We must eliminate the negligence of Funds.

We must eliminate the emptiness of human strength in incapability to standup for his rights for his needs.


“As One Voice, We must asked the world to make things happen by get things done”.

[isha_miranda]

Amazing how they now opt to wait until after the election....

After reading this, I wash shocked that a lot of 'closet puritans' want to ban marriages...then why not change the law so that partners in life have certain legal rights accordingly.

There are no longer Christmas decorations allowed in federal buildings, and much more changed in schools; there is literature being banned still; many media and historical literature are baized; and discrimination still goes on.

Are there maybe indications that a handful of those privileged few can determine what is right and what is wrong - and based on what?

What happened to liberty and the pursuit of happiness - maybe not meant to be what it is now, but society has changed and we should be tolerant enough to accept those changes.

Would appreciate your views on this. Thanks.


I think there are many more serious political issues in the world that need more attention and expenditure -

I have nothing against Gay and Lesbian life styles. But Marriage is different. It is not the marriage is matter the after life of marriage.

How do you bring legislation on legal separation, custody battle, and divorce and so on.

All Gay and Lesbians fighting for Marriage certificate do any body talk about their devices, separation, abuses?

How dose the court law write new law in to this.

Trust me we are living in complex society. Dragging children along with them?

Please live to-gether like any other Straight couples. Today 65% of the Couples having children and living together. Why not Gays and Lesbians too.

Matter of fact you have right to live with any body but your choice is not our choice.
In future people who are living with their Pets like a family will come forward and parade for marriage license to marry their pets too.

[Morganite]

I have nothing against Gay and Lesbian life styles. But Marriage is different. it is not the marriage is matter the after life of marriage.

How do you bring legislation on legal separation, custody battle, and divorce and so on.

All Gay and Lesbians fighting for Marriage certificate do any body talk about their devices, separation, abuses?

How dose the court law write new law in to this.?

Trust me we are living in complex society. Dragging children along with them?

Please live to-gether like any other Straight couples. Today 65% of the Couples having children and living together. Why not Gays and Lesbians too.

Matter of fact you have right to live with any body but your choice is not our choice.
In future people who are living with their Pets like a family will come forward and parade for marriage license to marry their pets too.

I have two dogs that any man would be lucky to be married to. :)

Ish_M:)RGANITE

[talaniman]

Matter of fact you have right to live with any body but your choice is not our choice.
In future people who are living with their Pets like a family will come forward and parade for marriage license to marry their pets too.

I don't understand what the right to marry amongst humans has to do with animals. Do we stop flying because a plane can crash? Such analogies lead me to believe that Fear is involved in the reasoning of those who oppose change or dealing with the different. This is sort of like those that oppose the decriminalization of drugs, fear a nation of dope heads so everyone who uses drugs is a criminal. Imprisonment, Ostracisation, and Humiliation have done nothing to stem the tide of drugs or stopped gay people from doing what they do and we are talking centuries of trying. Yes gays and drugs can be driven from the corner and out of sight but by no means should anyone think it will go away.