You sign a petition to curb gay rights. Should your name be public?

[saveliberty]

You said rights taken away. Clearly you are wrong.

California is a example of a state where the rights are taken away. If you want to talk about in general and be willingly obtuse then rights denied.

Either way, I suggest you take a gander at the Constitution sometime, specifically the 14th amendment.

I except your revised terminology. You can also look at the Constitution and see religion is a protected right. Marriage is a religious rite and not a government right. Civil union? Have at it. I have repeatedly said that is up to each state.

 

[Ravi]

Not a single real name?

Color me not surprised.

All the brave and courageous posters fear posting THEIR names while simultaneously calling OTHERS cowards for not wanting their names posted on the internet.

True hypocrisy at it's finest.

What's yours?

Do you also agree that lobbyists should be able to lobby the government privately? In other words, not use their names and not disclose their affiliations.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Not a single real name?

Color me not surprised.

All the brave and courageous posters fear posting THEIR names while simultaneously calling OTHERS cowards for not wanting their names posted on the internet.

True hypocrisy at it's finest.

What's yours?

Do you also agree that lobbyists should be able to lobby the government privately? In other words, not use their names and not disclose their affiliations.

Their names? The name of the lobbyist I could care less about. yes they can be anominous if they so desire. But the company that hired them should be public.

 

[Missourian]

Not a single real name?

Color me not surprised.

All the brave and courageous posters fear posting THEIR names while simultaneously calling OTHERS cowards for not wanting their names posted on the internet.

True hypocrisy at it's finest.

What's yours?

Do you also agree that lobbyists should be able to lobby the government privately? In other words, not use their names and not disclose their affiliations.

The Queen of deflection speaks.

We aren't talking about lobbyists Ravi...what we are talking about is citizens.

Feel free to start a lobbyist thread if you wish to discuss lobbyist.

I we tell you that I'm not going to post my real name for the exact same reason all of you "brave" poster won't post yours.

Because there are some bat shit crazy people out there that none of us want showing up on our front doors wearing a hockey mask and a tutu, weilding a double bit ax.


And anything I'm not willing to do myself...I certainly not willing to force on someone else against their will.



And that is why every one of you is a hypocrite...calling. Others coward for resisting what not one of you is willing to do.


Enough said.

Thread Closed.

 

[Modbert]

I except your revised terminology. You can also look at the Constitution and see religion is a protected right. Marriage is a religious rite and not a government right. Civil union? Have at it. I have repeatedly said that is up to each state.

You obviously ignored my earlier post on the civil unions. Equal rights should be given to all. However, those on the religious right do not want give equal rights to the Homosexuals. So they're taking what they can get.

And under the 14th amendment, legally, Gay Marriage should be legal. It doesn't mean the churches have to be forced anything, but the opportunity should be present.

That's what the states gets for taking religion and injecting it into the institution of civil unions in the first place.

 

[Modbert]

Not a single real name?

Color me not surprised.

All the brave and courageous posters fear posting THEIR names while simultaneously calling OTHERS cowards for not wanting their names posted on the internet.

True hypocrisy at it's finest.

My real name is on here, along with my picture. Your move.

Edit: So is my Facebook if you look hard enough.

Again, your move.

 

[AllieBaba]

Play by the rules and you'll have no problems Shogun. Explain what right(s) has been taken away from gays Dogbert. Two jerks doing what they do best.

The 1,138 federal rights that accompany civil marriage for starters. Want to keep going?

For someone who wants to save liberty, you sure have no problem taking away from others who are different than you.

How is refusing to re-define marriage denying anyone something they're entitled to?

"Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

 

[AllieBaba]

To insist that we are denying gays any rights by refusing to change definitions is like saying we should have just started calling blacks "whites" back in the day, thereby denying differences in skin color, and affording all people the same privileges through a legal lie.

 

[Modbert]

How is refusing to re-define marriage denying anyone something they're entitled to?

"Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

Your problem is you're looking at marriage is a religious institution but not in the legal sense. The problem here a religious institution is somehow in place of what should be a legal institution only. Therefore, until all marriages become civil unions with equal rights, marriage as a legal definition for the law must be redefined in order to be in line with the Constitution.

Don't like it? Blame those who made the laws. Or better yet, campaign for change instead of no change at all.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't have a problem. I understand the English language. The term marriage means a consensual, contractual union between a man and a woman.

BTW, just as our voting record is anonymous, likewise should those who sign petitions have their anonymity protected, to a reasonable degree.

 

[Modbert]

To insist that we are denying gays any rights by refusing to change definitions is like saying we should have just started calling blacks "whites" back in the day, thereby denying differences in skin color, and affording all people the same privileges through a legal lie.

YOU have no right to deny people the rights given to others as protected by the Constitution.

You're looking at this as a highly religious person. I am sad for you that you are a point in your life where the world is black and white. However, you should look at it the correct way that I stated it above.

Again, campaign for all legal marriages to become civil unions for everybody under equal rights.

If you recall, we do not allow "separate but equal" in this country. What makes me curious is if we were having this debate in 1967. (You were alive I'm sure)

No offense, but you would likely be arguing that blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry as it's against the definition of marriage.

 

[Modbert]

I don't have a problem. I understand the English language. The term marriage means a consensual, contractual union between a man and a woman.

BTW, just as our voting record is anonymous, likewise should those who sign petitions have their anonymity protected, to a reasonable degree.

The religious term is marriage has been applied to the legal term. Our Founding Fathers did not want religion having it's hand in the Government to this degree for good reason.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bull fucking shit.
Yes, the religious term marriage was adopted by the legal world, as MANY terms have been.

Our founding fathers wanted freedom of religion, not the constraint of it.

Which is why they looked to God and the bible when striving to create the nation. They recognized the futility of a government that denied God.

 

[Modbert]

Bull fucking shit.
Yes, the religious term marriage was adopted by the legal world, as MANY terms have been.

Our founding fathers wanted freedom of religion, not the constraint of it.

Which is why they looked to God and the bible when striving to create the nation. They recognized the futility of a government that denied God.

Wow, you REALLY would of been using that bible to justify why whites and blacks should not be married if you were alive at your age now in 1967. Hell, even the devil can cite scripture.

My point is this, the religious term of marriage was adopted back in a time when religion ruled the world. And it still does in many cases.

However, our Founding Fathers as much as they wanted freedom of religion did NOT make this a nation RULED by religion. They could of had easily done so, but did not do so.

This is 2010, we need to change. You see me as a enemy, I get it. But the point is, I want a different goal than you that YOU will benefit from. You don't want Gays to be married? Fine, campaign for equal rights for all under civil unions and abolish marriage from the legal sense.

That sound alright to you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...I typically am opposed to such issues all the way around especially when there is a threat of violence.

Immie

What threats of violence? These anecdotal cases must be vetted in a court of law before they get the weight needed to allow restrictong access to public information.

You are starting to sound like Cheney/FOX and friends whne it comes to keeping everything SECRET. Trust me, they say.

We demand proof in this country.

If I knew you personally, I'd kick your ass and if you are bigger than me, I'd find someone else to do it for me, for the Cheney comment.

Proof has already been given, I think it was even earlier in this thread regarding the vandalism perpetrated upon Prop 8 supporters.

If you guys don't want to review the links, I can't help that.

Immie

I started a immie thread and there is one that show a major figure in Proo 8 lied about being afraid of pubkic exposure.

anecdotal evidence is insufficient..

btw...Ted Olson...GOP Lawyer..

“Separate is not equal. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage.

We’re not inventing any new right, or creating a new right, or asking the courts to recognize a new right.

The Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right, and although our opponents say, ‘Well, that’s always been involving a man and a woman,’ when the Supreme Court has talked about it they’ve said it’s an associational right, it’s a liberty right, it’s a privacy right, and it’s an expression of your identity, which is all wrapped up in the Constitution.”

 

[AllieBaba]

Bull fucking shit.
Yes, the religious term marriage was adopted by the legal world, as MANY terms have been.

Our founding fathers wanted freedom of religion, not the constraint of it.

Which is why they looked to God and the bible when striving to create the nation. They recognized the futility of a government that denied God.

Wow, you REALLY would of been using that bible to justify why whites and blacks should not be married if you were alive at your age now in 1967. Hell, even the devil can cite scripture.

My point is this, the religious term of marriage was adopted back in a time when religion ruled the world. And it still does in many cases.

However, our Founding Fathers as much as they wanted freedom of religion did NOT make this a nation RULED by religion. They could of had easily done so, but did not do so.

This is 2010, we need to change. You see me as a enemy, I get it. But the point is, I want a different goal than you that YOU will benefit from. You don't want Gays to be married? Fine, campaign for equal rights for all under civil unions and abolish marriage from the legal sense.

That sound alright to you?

No, you fucking idiot. I was alive in 67, and I have never opposed marriage between races.

 

[Modbert]

No, you fucking idiot. I was alive in 67, and I have never opposed marriage between races.

I pegged you as younger. My point still stands though.

 

[noose4]

Isn't signing a petition an open declaration of your support? Who ever signed an anonymous petition?

Yep and people should have the courage to stand by their convictions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My concern is why?

Why are they posting those names? Is it to set up a "wanted" website?

That is where my problem with this lies.

It is clear to everyone except for maybe Shogun that the people who want to post names want to do so in order to intimidate those who oppose them. This can only lead to violence.

Immie

Your conclusion doesn't even follow your false premises.

What lies are on the website listing the signers info?

The signers signed a public petition to take away an already legal right. The neighbors, family members and friends and coworkers should know who these people are. How else would one try to convince/intimidate those who signed petitions that were pushed by people using deceit, deception and lies?

The proponents of Prop. 8 will be caught in their lies in court.

Intimidate? That is the entire issue here, we're talking about intimidation through violence and that does not belong in a free society.

Immie

what violence? anecdotal evidence?

immies' own thread...link...

If there is a serious issue of security and threats the courts can make an exveption here...with the Congress. But I am afraid you are either being duped or duplicitous.

are you?

 

[AllieBaba]

No, you fucking idiot. I was alive in 67, and I have never opposed marriage between races.

I pegged you as younger. My point still stands though.

Your point didn't stand in the first place.

Race and sexual orientation are two completely different things.
No rights are being denied to gay people, except the right to call themselves a man and a woman, when they aren't.