Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[M.D. Rawlings]

Can we go back a bit, did someone actually post on here that the COTUS gives both implicit and implied rights to the federal government?

That is so incorrect that it is FRIGHTENING that someone actually believes it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I understand the point you're making, but I disagree with the implication on which your premise rests.

Powers... are not the same as 'things one can do'. The Constitution gives the power to make law to the Legislature. Which must be signed and executed by the President.

The risk the framers took, was that the Legislature and the President would be elected by a virtuous people.

The US Citizenry is no longer virtuous and the people they are electing are not virtuous, thus they ARE stepping beyond the specific lines drawn by the Constitution. But this is the result of the legislature passing ITS authority off to bureaucrats and not aggressively defending its power, by sustaining its responsibility to its just powers to make law, as determined by the people who elected them.

Within this issue, you're correct, the Congress does NOT have the authority to transfer its powers to other bodies of the US Government. Where you're NOT correct, is in the assumption that the congress does not hae the power to preserve the rights of US Citizens... .

I think you misunderstood. I'm in agreement that Congress is transferring its powers to third parties , but I have not said that Congress has the power to preserve the rights of citizens. I don't know where that cam from.

What I have said is that if a power is not SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government (any branch) in the COTUS then the default is that they do not have that power. This is obviously true as everytime they make a power grab unless SCOTUS can somehow stretch the COTUS almost beyond recognition to make it fit, they don't have that power.

Take something like the civil rights Act, as an example. Now states I believe are free to outlaw discrimination, but it's a plain fact that Congress is NOT given the power to regulate such things. Where does it say that Congress has the power to pass a law that some little mom and pop shop in podunk, MS can't refuse to marry gays?

Now , ultimately is it that big of a deal if Congress passes that particular law? No of course not, no one is going to hell for taking pictures of a gay wedding. We both know that. But that is irrelevant, it is the principle of law. Not holding Congress to the COTUS is exactly how we have gotten where we are now.

Or if you'd rather talk about the President, that's fine to, Obama is taking powers left and right, because we've let him, as we let the guy before him, etc etc. And it all started with something that everyone looked around and said "yeah well you know, they really don't have the authority to do that, but is it REALLY that big a deal?"

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it. The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Who cares what some thought? Biblical Christianity eventually won the day, and has since won the day against segregation as well. Victory. If you think for a moment that the pagan world would have ever abandoned slavery without the influence of Christianity. . . . The bottom line is this: chattel slavery is a pagan institution that no Christians should have ever gotten entangled with, and fortunately the majority of Christians throughout history understood that and beat it back down for good in the West. The rest of the world eventually followed the West's lead, by the way, as a result of the spread of Christianity via the "evil" of colonialism. The only place it's still practiced to any significant degree is in the Islamic world.

You leftists moan about colonialism. Ever consider the plus side of it?

The "big deal" is that the bible was used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...just as it is being used to justify anti gay bigotry. They thought they were just as "right" as those who oppose gay and lesbian equality because the bible tells them to. Their "religious liberty" was not taken into consideration when Public Accommodation laws were passed or when bans on interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional.

Look, I don't agree with my colleagues on that score; that is to say, that there were no persons who used the Bible to defend these things. The argument that southern slave owners predicated their theory on the construct of husbandry strikes me as irrelevant to your fundamental observation. Africans, i.e., the offspring of Ham are in reality not subhuman. The very idea is repugnant. In reality that peculiar institution was chattel slavery. And they did use the Bible to justify their subjugation of their fellow human beings in violation of divine and natural law.

But also, in reality, the Bible does not justify or condone chattel slavery. On the contrary, it condemns it. So your argument's transitional qualifier "just as right" is invalid.

Moving on. . . .

"[T]hose who oppose gay and lesbian equality [do so] because the bible tells them to."

This is false. While it is true that homosexuality is condemned by the God of the Bible, as the nature of homosexuality is in fact evil and, consequently, destructive and tyrannical, that is not the political objection to homosexual "marriage" as a governmentally regulated institution. And until you get that through you head, you will never understand the true nature of the objection.

So there's no point going from here until you're ready to concede the fallaciousness of this belief. It is pointless to keep bottoming your assertion on this premise over and over and over and over again when all the while false.

Let me know when you're ready to go deeper.

You do know that I opposed sodomy laws, right? That I campaigned with homosexuals to end them?

A careful reading of what I have written will reveal that I have never said that people of that era used the Bible to defend slavery. I merely asked the lesbian twins for proof. They responded with two works of fiction LOL

No problem. I know that. I followed your line of posts and laughed along with you as it just went on and on with no response. What happened, apparently, is that she imagined she had provided what you asked for in that post which merely listed scriptures that had allegedly been used for that purpose. Only problem? There was no historical figure with that scripture coming out of his mouth along with any formal justification in his own words to go with it. Ghost writer.

I was alluding to the poster who interjected the construct of estate husbandry and another who agreed. Wasn't you, of course.

BTW, I wanted to pick up on a line of posts between you and Keys that got dropped regarding this:

Now , ultimately is it that big of a deal if Congress passes that particular law? No of course not, no one is going to hell for taking pictures of a gay wedding. We both know that. But that is irrelevant, it is the principle of law. Not holding Congress to the COTUS is exactly how we have gotten where we are now.

He never answered you. Don't take offense, but you do realize that Keys and I are Lockeans, i.e., students of the Republic's foundational Anglo-American traditional of natural law? To say that the individual's worldview, regardless of what anybody else thinks about it or, for that matter, what Congress "thinks" about it, is paramount to understanding the proper limits of power of legitimate government. To a Lockean what you seem to be suggesting is startling. No big deal? Actually, it's huge and key to understanding why Public Accommodation for sexual orientation is an intolerable imposition, a devastating blow to First Amendment liberties. Trust me when I tell this, he would not agree with your "We both know that." No way in hell.

But I wanted to explore this with you to get a hold on where your going with this and what it all means. It's interesting.

Oh I think we actually agree on that point. I meant it was no big deal in the sense that no one is actually harmed by having to serve gays, but it IS a big deal in the sense that the federal government has overstepped when they pass such laws.

Hope that clears it up.

Well, no, of course not, as long as we're talking about common commercial transactions. But like the now preverbal baker or photographer, the sort of services a homosexual would want in the case of a wedding or something akin to that is anathema. Anathema. The orthodox Christian or Jew, cannot and will not do it. I don't think you grasp what that means to the Christian.

And this would be most especially true were his property involved in this.

Hmm. This explains much. No wonder you think my indignation is over the top. Dude. This is serious business with Christians, and this is a serious violation of Frist Amendment liberties.

I'm not exaggerating when I tell you, biblical Christians are not going to comply. Further, the Framers would have regarded this to be a very serious violation of liberty as well, and what comes behind that is even more of the same, the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights for everyone. It won't stop there. Like Keys says, you guys just don't get the civil liberties storm that's coming over this or the devastation on our nation that will come with homo marriage.

This is why:

Liberal Quest to Rehabilitate Christians 8211 The Homofascist Rainbow Shirts Are At It Again TheBlaze.com

Religious freedom 8216 gay marriage 8217 cannot coexist

 

[g5000]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Never mind, for the moment,that that you offered no proof of that.

Just ask some Alabama rednecks the next time you meet them.

What would that have to do with colonial era Americans?

What does any of this have to do with gay people wanting to get married in a place that performs weddings for the public?

 

[martybegan]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

and they would be wrong. No where in the bible is enslaving a whole race ever justified as OK. Again, there are plenty of direct and explicit references to homosexual activity being unacceptable.

There are also references to masturbation being unacceptable. And there is a verse that says you will be judged as you judge!

Yes, but you don't find masturbation advocates going around saying they can jerk off on someones property because its a "public accommodation"

And judge not lest ye be judged works both ways.

 

[g5000]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

and they would be wrong. No where in the bible is enslaving a whole race ever justified as OK. Again, there are plenty of direct and explicit references to homosexual activity being unacceptable.

There are also references to masturbation being unacceptable. And there is a verse that says you will be judged as you judge!

Yes, but you don't find masturbation advocates going around saying they can jerk off on someones property because its a "public accommodation"

But you do find masturbation advocates going around saying that deep throat midget porn is protected by the Constitution.

The gay people weren't asking to have sex on someone's property. They were asking for a ceremony.

And judge not lest ye be judged works both ways.

I don't think you will find any gays banning you to hell for jerking off.

Except for maybe Ted Haggard...

 

[bodecea]

And yet still, not one example of a Christian from that time actually doing what you say they did.

Provide a quote, not a third parties opinion of what southern preachers were preaching.

Here are two testimonies written at the time in support of slavery. You can't deny anymore after reading these.

A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution
of Slavery, in an Essay, First Published in the Religious Herald,
and Republished by Request: with Remarks on a Letter
of Elder Galusha, of New York, to Dr. R. Fuller, of South Carolina:

Nellie Norton: or, Southern Slavery and the Bible.
A Scriptural Refutation of the Principal Arguments upon which the Abolitionists Rely.
A Vindication of Southern Slavery from the Old and New Testaments:

LOL you just sourced two FICTIONS books. LOL you may as well have cited Tom Sawyer.



My God

I'm curious....where do you get that those are Fiction books?

 

[bodecea]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

and they would be wrong. No where in the bible is enslaving a whole race ever justified as OK. Again, there are plenty of direct and explicit references to homosexual activity being unacceptable.

There are also references to masturbation being unacceptable. And there is a verse that says you will be judged as you judge!

Yes, but you don't find masturbation advocates going around saying they can jerk off on someones property because its a "public accommodation"

And judge not lest ye be judged works both ways.

There are laws against public exposure in play there....are you saying there are laws against being a homosexual?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Are these necks crimson red, ruby red or rose red? Come to think of it, there is an Alabama crimson, the usual suspect.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Never mind, for the moment,that that you offered no proof of that.

Just ask some Alabama rednecks the next time you meet them.

What would that have to do with colonial era Americans?

What does any of this have to do with gay people wanting to get married in a place that performs weddings for the public?

What does the homosexuals' desire to be married at such a venue have to do with the inalienable rights of any given human being who runs such a venue?


I guess I just don't get you drift.

 

[g5000]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Are these necks crimson red, ruby red or rose red? Come to think of it, there is an Alabama crimson, the usual suspect.

I see you have never been in the Deep South. I, on the other hand, lived there for many years and know of what I speak.

There are plenty who will cite you chapter and verse from the Bible to support slavery.

 

[bodecea]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Are these necks crimson red, ruby red or rose red? Come to think of it, there is an Alabama crimson, the usual suspect.

I see you have never been in the Deep South. I, on the other hand, lived there for many years and know of what I speak.

There are plenty who will cite you chapter and verse from the Bible to support slavery.

And to support segregation.

 

[Silhouette]

Again for that much-needed reality check: Gay sexual behaviors and the cult promoting that lifestyle are in no way = to race.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The question I wanted to ask you: in those states where only a subset of rights, etc. are provided for CU/DP, is there a general consensus of what is included among the various states that have them?

No, some states provide that CU's/DP's (Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships) are equal to CM (Civil Marriage), in others it varies by state.

Then there are states that banned any CU/DP as being legally recognized.

Also, would you help me to better understand the difference between what the Court established about same-sex marriage recently and the nature of the cases currently pending.

What court? There have been, IIRC, 20-30 District court rulings and currently there is the 10th Circuit and the 4th Circuit that are being appealed to the SCOUTS. There are other cases working their way through the 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuit courts. Those cases are farther back in the pipeline then the 4th and 10th's cases so they may not be ready for the SCOTUS fall term.

All I can recommend is check out the Wiki articles on SSCM in Utah and Virginia, they will provide the case names and sometimes links directly to the briefs and decisions. If not, go to the CIrcuit Courts website and lookup the briefs/decisions.

Another good source is the SCOTUSblog this site is dedicated to indepth commentary on SCOTUS cases and in the same-sex marriage area you will find the cases and often a link to the case history providing full access to the amicus briefs and decisions.

Same-Sex Marriage Post-Windsor SCOTUSblog

>>>>

 

[g5000]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Are these necks crimson red, ruby red or rose red? Come to think of it, there is an Alabama crimson, the usual suspect.

I see you have never been in the Deep South. I, on the other hand, lived there for many years and know of what I speak.

There are plenty who will cite you chapter and verse from the Bible to support slavery.

And to support segregation.

Indeed.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Never mind, for the moment,that that you offered no proof of that.

Just ask some Alabama rednecks the next time you meet them.

What would that have to do with colonial era Americans?

What does any of this have to do with gay people wanting to get married in a place that performs weddings for the public?

Not a damned thing , so perhaps you'd be good enough to ask SeaWytch and Bodecea why they felt the need to A) even bring up slavery in the first place and B) why they felt the need to attack Christians (specifically colonial era Christians)

 

[g5000]

Again for that much-needed reality check: Gay sexual behaviors and the cult promoting that lifestyle are in no way = to race.

Here's a reality check: Gay rights are identical to civil rights when it comes to equal protection of the laws. The burden is on those who would oppress them to prove a social harm would result if the minority group were given equal rights.

None of you bigots has ever been able to meet that burden of proof with respect to gay marriage or interracial marriage ( which was the last time bigots whined about marriage being redefined).

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Never mind, for the moment,that that you offered no proof of that.

Just ask some Alabama rednecks the next time you meet them.

What would that have to do with colonial era Americans?

What does any of this have to do with gay people wanting to get married in a place that performs weddings for the public?

What does the homosexuals' desire to be married at such a venue have to do with the inalienable rights of any given human being who runs such a venue?


I guess I just don't get you drift.

Honestly, the best solution might be for people when asked to perform such to just haul off and punch the person asking in the mouth. These days a simple assault charge seems easier and cheaper to fight than a "won't serve gays" charge.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again for that much-needed reality check: Gay sexual behaviors and the cult promoting that lifestyle are in no way = to race.

Here's a reality check: Gay rights are identical to civil rights when it comes to equal protection of the laws. The burden is on those who would oppress them to prove a social harm would result if the minority group were given equal rights.

None of you bigots has ever been able to meet that burden of proof with respect to homosexuals or blacks.

I'm not a bigot , but I will gladly destroy the above post of yours.

I am for EQUAL rights for all,meaning I have the right to tell ANYONE to get the hell out of my business for ANY reason. In fact,I will go one better, I shouldn't even have to have or state a reason why I don't want to do business with someone. It is that simple.

 

[Seawytch]

LOL you just sourced two FICTIONS books. LOL you may as well have cited Tom Sawyer.



My God

Those were not fiction books, they were testimonies written by defenders of slavery citing the bible as justification. Your continued denial of facts is amusing.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LOL you just sourced two FICTIONS books. LOL you may as well have cited Tom Sawyer.



My God

Those were not fiction books, they were testimonies written by defenders of slavery citing the bible as justification. Your continued denial of facts is amusing.

They were CLEARLY fictional stories. Both of them. What's next you tell us The Jungle Book is an accurate description of life in Africa? LOL

 

[g5000]

Again for that much-needed reality check: Gay sexual behaviors and the cult promoting that lifestyle are in no way = to race.

Here's a reality check: Gay rights are identical to civil rights when it comes to equal protection of the laws. The burden is on those who would oppress them to prove a social harm would result if the minority group were given equal rights.

None of you bigots has ever been able to meet that burden of proof with respect to homosexuals or blacks.

I'm not a bigot , but I will gladly destroy the above post of yours.

I am for EQUAL rights for all,meaning I have the right to tell ANYONE to get the hell out of my business for ANY reason. In fact,I will go one better, I shouldn't even have to have or state a reason why I don't want to do business with someone. It is that simple.

This is called "moving the goal posts".

Nevertheless, you just claimed that gay rights were not equal to civil rights. After I booted that idiotic claim, you then made a statement which is equally applicable to gays and blacks! You want the right to boot ANYONE (which means blacks or homosexuals or anyone else you might hate) from your place of business! You made the IDENTICAL argument racists made over lunch counters. You just established the similarities between the struggle for gay rights and civil rights!

Well done! Thank you!

Bears aren't that smart.