Michelle Bachmann's husband tries to straighten out gays

• jhay78

  

  gut;841246 wrote:Well, now you get into the question of practicality, and it's not practical or wise to pass such a law when people can go to the next state or to Canada. What does such a law accomplish? The smug feeling of morality while you cause a minor inconvenience to go somewhere else?

  
  It's also neither practical nor wise for the Supreme Court to decide by fiat what the moral/legal standards for all 50 states should be, especially when in 1973 not a single state in the US allowed abortion on demand through all nine months of a woman's pregnancy. So should every state eradicate every ounce of morality out of its legal code so that the lowest common denominator becomes the standard everywhere?
• gut

  jhay78;841600 wrote:It's also neither practical nor wise for the Supreme Court to decide by fiat what the moral/legal standards for all 50 states should be, especially when in 1973 not a single state in the US allowed abortion on demand through all nine months of a woman's pregnancy. So should every state eradicate every ounce of morality out of its legal code so that the lowest common denominator becomes the standard everywhere?

  You may disagree with the SC interpretation of the constitution, but don't disagree with it's duty to do so. The days of 50 states deciding their own laws to their heart's content is a rather outdated notion when you can travel across the 48 contiguous states in a few hours. Keep in mind when the constitution was written it would take a few days to get to the next town in most cases. And the arguments are mostly religious based, and last I checked we're supposed to have separation of church and state. I may not agree with the law, but I think it's ridiculous we continue to debate it.
  
  And why all the fuss? Does it make a difference to you if a law is federal or state/local, or is a law a law? And do you choose which state to live in based on the laws of that state? Did you review the statutes in all 50 states and say "dammit, Kansas looks like a great place to live because it's illegal to bring a cow into the public square"?
• FairwoodKing

  Glory Days;841305 wrote:so what you are saying is your lesbian couple friends really didnt give a **** about getting married, they just wanted benefits?

  
  The rights and benefits are what we're fighting for. I've known a lot of gay couples who have gotten married in a church in states where same-sex marriage is not legal. These people consider themselves to be married in the eyes of God, but the state does not recognize it.
• coyotes22

  

  FairwoodKing;841809 wrote:The rights and benefits are what we're fighting for. I've known a lot of gay couples who have gotten married in a church in states where same-sex marriage is not legal. These people consider themselves to be married in the eyes of God, but the state does not recognize it.

  
  I thought there was no God?
  
  
• FairwoodKing

  coyotes22;841816 wrote:I thought there was no God?
  
  

  
  I don't believe in God, but there are many gay and lesbian people who do.
• Glory Days

  

  FairwoodKing;841809 wrote:The rights and benefits are what we're fighting for. I've known a lot of gay couples who have gotten married in a church in states where same-sex marriage is not legal. These people consider themselves to be married in the eyes of God, but the state does not recognize it.

  
  so why didnt they get married in the Netherlands when they had the chance?
• FairwoodKing

  Glory Days;841956 wrote:so why didnt they get married in the Netherlands when they had the chance?

  
  What for? It wouldn't have been legal in the state of Washington anyway.
• Glory Days

  

  FairwoodKing;842011 wrote:What for? It wouldn't have been legal in the state of Washington anyway.

  
  because they love each other and wanted to be married in the eyes of god whether or not the state recognizes it. you know, the exact thing you just wrote in your last reply.
• jmog

  And the arguments are mostly religious based, and last I checked we're supposed to have separation of church and state. I may not agree with the law, but I think it's ridiculous we continue to debate it.

  I dont want to change the thread topic so jf you could please pm me the section of our Constitution or DoI that says "separation of church and state"?
  
  I would love to read this non-existent text.
• jhay78

  

  gut;841621 wrote:You may disagree with the SC interpretation of the constitution, but don't disagree with it's duty to do so. The days of 50 states deciding their own laws to their heart's content is a rather outdated notion when you can travel across the 48 contiguous states in a few hours. Keep in mind when the constitution was written it would take a few days to get to the next town in most cases.

  
  I don't have a problem with the Supreme Court exercising its constitutional duties; I have a problem with them acting as legislators and inventing rights (like privacy) where they don't exist.
  

  And the arguments are mostly religious based, and last I checked we're supposed to have separation of church and state. I may not agree with the law, but I think it's ridiculous we continue to debate it.

  You need to check again. What we're supposed to have is Congress not making any law respecting an establishment of a religion (they've never come close) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It says nothing about eliminating all references to God or religion in public or government.
  
  "Separation of church and state" as jmog stated, is nowhere to be found in our founding documents, but was used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists explaining why he didn't issue proclamations for days of prayer, etc. as Washington and Adams had done. Of course Jefferson made many references to God and religion in public speeches to Congress and other settings. But that didn't stop Hugo Black and the SC from reinventing the phrase and making it applicable to any and all issues involving religion.
  
  The bottom line is you can't remove any and all laws representing moral choices based on the 5th and 14th Amendments. Citizens of individual states should decide moral issues, not the Supreme Court. T
• gut

  jhay78;842329 wrote: Citizens of individual states should decide moral issues, not the Supreme Court. T

  
  And here we are back to this false sense of do-gooding. The law is worthless and has no impact when people can go over to the next state, or even Canada, and get an abortion. If it helps you sleep better at night, that's fantastic. I see it as a tremendous waste of energy, resources and time and grossly detracts from the issues that MATERIALLY impact our quality of living. Not to mention it's ridiculous that traveling across from state to state in the US, my HOME country, I have to waste the time learning different laws of FIFTY states - and do you have any idea the waste and inefficiency this creates for business operating across the country? We don't live in a society where the next two is a two-day horse ride anymore.
  
  People tend to get all riled up over liberty and the constitution and throw common sense out the window - not all govt "interference" is bad or unproductive.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  gut;842392 wrote:Not to mention it's ridiculous that traveling across from state to state in the US, my HOME country, I have to waste the time learning different laws of FIFTY states - and do you have any idea the waste and inefficiency this creates for business operating across the country?

  
  Unless the business is an abortion clinic or a gay wedding chapel, I don't see how this topic has anything to do with businesses. The federal government makes it known everyday that they can regulate interstate commerce, which they take to mean every aspect of one's life. You don't have to worry about businesses operating under different rules across state lines.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;842482 wrote:Unless the business is an abortion clinic or a gay wedding chapel, I don't see how this topic has anything to do with businesses. The federal government makes it known everyday that they can regulate interstate commerce, which they take to mean every aspect of one's life. You don't have to worry about businesses operating under different rules across state lines.

  
  They most certainly do. A company with offices/factories/outlets in different states doing business locally falls under state laws and regulations, not interstate commerce. Interstate commerce applies to transactions moving ACROSS state lines.
• jhay78

  

  gut;842522 wrote:They most certainly do. A company with offices/factories/outlets in different states doing business locally falls under state laws and regulations, not interstate commerce. Interstate commerce applies to transactions moving ACROSS state lines.

  
  Theoretically, yes. But multiple Supreme Court decisions and acts of Congress have used the commerce clause to justify pretty much anything. Stephen Breyer (United States vs. Lopez- 1995) stated that possessing a firearm near a school should be a federal crime (even though many states and localities already make it a crime) because guns near schools affect education, and poor education affects . . . wait for it . . . interstate commerce.
  
  So in many cases, the federal government throws libery, the constitution, and common sense out the window.
• majorspark

  

  gut;842392 wrote:And here we are back to this false sense of do-gooding. The law is worthless and has no impact when people can go over to the next state, or even Canada, and get an abortion. If it helps you sleep better at night, that's fantastic.

  No impact? I don't think so. Its not as easy as walking or driving a short distance down to the local abortion clinic. It takes more thought, planning, and money. Depending on how things would shake out with the states it could be a thousand mile or more drive to the nearest clinic. Legal obstacles that may lend time to make the correct choice and save a life or two.
  

  gut;842392 wrote: I see it as a tremendous waste of energy, resources and time and grossly detracts from the issues that MATERIALLY impact our quality of living.

  Its a waste of energy because everyone wants to nationalize these issues. You are not going to get any consensus nationally on these issues with 300+ million people with differing backgrounds, moral compass and religious beliefs.
  
  I don't give a crap if some local school district in Dearborn, Michigan allows foot washing stations in their public schools. If you want to set up a statue to the tree god in the public square in Eugene, Oregon, I don't care. Nor should anyone care if some local school district in Texas ends a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ at a graduation ceremony.
  
  But no, the one offended has to petition a federal judge to have the federal government intervene. Though they have the freedom to live in a community of their choosing, they want the feds to come in an stick it to the locals.
  

  gut;842392 wrote: Not to mention it's ridiculous that traveling across from state to state in the US, my HOME country, I have to waste the time learning different laws of FIFTY states - and do you have any idea the waste and inefficiency this creates for business operating across the country?

  What are you saying? Do you want the federal government to run everything? Wow! The mask has come off. I can't believe what I am reading. Do you not see the freak show displayed before your very eyes in Washington today? They are driving us down the road to fiscal ruin and you argue they need more power? God save the republic.
  

  gut;842392 wrote:We don't live in a society where the next two is a two-day horse ride anymore.

  Hence the enumerated power of congress to establish Post Offices and Post Roads. With modern technology the power granted to congress regarding the post office and post roads is obsolete. Should we just ignore this power granted congress because it is not a two-day horse ride anymore? How should we get rid of it? Definitely not a constitutional amendment. That would be too difficult.
• Skyhook79

  

  FairwoodKing;839096 wrote:Jesus was another fraud.

  [video]http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2011/07/dan-savage-wishes-republicans-f-ing.html[/video]
  
  Yet you follow this guy??? smh
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Savage is a reactionary -- and an idiot. He does gay people (and their allies) interested in equality no good by using rhetoric like that.
• FairwoodKing

  Skyhook79;842808 wrote:[video]http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2011/07/dan-savage-wishes-republicans-f-ing.html[/video]
  
  Yet you follow this guy??? smh

  
  Yes, I follow this guy. And I wouldn't cry any tears if all Repubs were dead.
• Al Bundy

  FairwoodKing;843387 wrote:Yes, I follow this guy. And I wouldn't cry any tears if all Repubs were dead.

  
  Always nice when someone who wants others to accept his views wishes others dead for sharing different views.
• FairwoodKing

  Al Bundy;843404 wrote:Always nice when someone who wants others to accept his views wishes others dead for sharing different views.

  
  Republicans have never done me any favors. I'll be kind and say they should all convert to be Democrats.
• Al Bundy

  FairwoodKing;843416 wrote:Republicans have never done me any favors. I'll be kind and say they should all convert to be Democrats.

  
  I'm a Dem, and I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do believe people who hold that view have a right to be heard. However, that listening doesn't seem to go both ways. Gays want a voice that others listen to (and they deserve that right), but they do not want to grant a voice to anyone who may have differing views.
• gut

  majorspark;842610 wrote:What are you saying? Do you want the federal government to run everything? Wow! The mask has come off. I can't believe what I am reading. Do you not see the freak show displayed before your very eyes in Washington today? They are driving us down the road to fiscal ruin and you argue they need more power? God save the republic.

  I didn't say that at all. Congrats on proving the point of how people suspend rational thought and common sense when it comes to govt and laws. Two words: efficiency & effectiveness. There are things the feds are going to be better at managing, and things that the local govt is better at. There is too much overlap and inefficiency.
  
  The mentality really is kind of comical to me - outside of Texas, how many people think of themselves as Ohioans or Michiganders first and Americans second? Govt is govt and law is law, there's very little personal impact between what falls under state and federal. The libertarian and construction points are fun in theory, but a practical common sense approach works better in the real world. I mean, maybe every state should have it's own central bank and print its own money - that is both idiotic and impractical.
• jhay78

  

  FairwoodKing;843387 wrote:Yes, I follow this guy. And I wouldn't cry any tears if all Repubs were dead.

  
  When you post stuff like that, you discredit anything rational you may have already stated, and have officially earned the right to not be taken seriously ever again.
  
  I have really strong feelings about what Democrats are doing and have done to this country. I have an intense dislike for the way they go about their business of promising utopia (entitlements), promoting class warfare, and taxing and spending us all into oblivion while ignoring the constitution. But I have never, nor will I ever, wish any of them dead.
• gut

  jhay78;843515 wrote: I have really strong feelings about what Democrats are doing and have done to this country

  
  I agree with you, but after the last 10 years I've had to throw the Republican party into that mix, too.
• justincredible

  

  Rs and Ds both suck, but wishing either group dead is asinine.