User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 7:39:03 AM EDT
6 years ago Arizona voted on whether or not Marriage was the union of a man and a woman, Arizonan's voted in favor of traditional marriage. Yesterday with no vote at all from Arizonan's the federal court shoves some unwanted legislation on us. Gay marriage isn't really a topic I care about.... like at all, but in my mind this is a very slippery slope. Letting the federal system shove political hot button legislation down our throats to fit their agendas is kind of a big deal this time it's gay marriage it could have easily been gun laws.
In my mind it's a sad day when one federal court judges opinion matters more then the votes of millions of Arizonans. What do you guys think about Arizona buckling on this one? Oh and here is a pic of one of the first legal gay marriages in AZ, you guys like lesbians right?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:07:24 AM EDT
[#1]
I'm thinking it time we take back our country one way on another. Everything the democrats do is against the will of the people and wrong for the country.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:13:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Meh... That topic doesn't effect me one bit. Not even like a slight chance . Let them do what they want.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 9:28:04 AM EDT
[#3]
Gay marriage isn't on my radar at all, I really couldn't care less. But, this trend of "give me more rights and entitlements, while I strip your rights away" Is getting completely out of hand.
Government has no place in my church or my bedroom, if you want to marry your dog or the tree in your front yard, and you can find an officiate to perform the ceremony, more power to you. Good luck with losing half your property to your dog in the divorce when you find him humping the neighbor... Freedom can be messy and sometimes a bit awkward, but if you want it for yourself, don't make it a habit of restricting it for others. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 11:51:15 AM EDT
[#4]
legislatures often pass regulations and rules that are later overturned.
Conservatives cheered when courts over-turned laws in Heller vs. DC, McDonald vs. Illinois, and other liberal regulations. If gay marriage affects your relationship...you are gay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:21:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Great choice for a pic OP...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:47:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:49:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Judicial Review is one of the reasons the Constitution has any power. Otherwise the legislative could pass whatever they want. The law Arizona passed was not Constitutionally sound. The only way we'll 'ban' gay marriage in this country is if a constitutional amendment gets passed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:51:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . No it didn't; this is not a democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. When the people(whether by direct vote or through elected representatives), enact a law that is Constitutionally unsound, it is the job of the Judicial branch to strike it down. If you want to ban Gay Marriage there is a process outlined in the Constitution that tells you exactly how to enact an Amendment to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:54:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . Should the will of the majority be able to restrict the rights of the minority? What happens to gun owners when the majority favors gun control? We know what that looks like. Freedom is freedom, take it or leave it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 2:44:32 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should the will of the majority be able to restrict the rights of the minority? What happens to gun owners when the majority favors gun control? We know what that looks like. Freedom is freedom, take it or leave it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . Should the will of the majority be able to restrict the rights of the minority? What happens to gun owners when the majority favors gun control? We know what that looks like. Freedom is freedom, take it or leave it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Agreed. The courts are mandating a freedom. Not using their power to restrict as in gun laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 4:33:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh... That topic doesn't effect me one bit. Not even like a slight chance . Let them do what they want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 4:35:29 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great choice for a pic OP... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 4:38:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No it didn't; this is not a democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. When the people(whether by direct vote or through elected representatives), enact a law that is Constitutionally unsound, it is the job of the Judicial branch to strike it down. If you want to ban Gay Marriage there is a process outlined in the Constitution that tells you exactly how to enact an Amendment to do it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . No it didn't; this is not a democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. When the people(whether by direct vote or through elected representatives), enact a law that is Constitutionally unsound, it is the job of the Judicial branch to strike it down. If you want to ban Gay Marriage there is a process outlined in the Constitution that tells you exactly how to enact an Amendment to do it. I've been trying to google it, what amendment in the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage according to this judge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 5:02:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Now they can be as miserable as the rest of us straight married folks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:19:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now they can be as miserable as the rest of us straight married folks And they can larn the word "divorce". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:03:41 PM EDT
[#16]
So gay marriage is going to be forced on me against my will?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:10:55 PM EDT
[#17]
When you make things a "right" sanctioned by government don't be surprised when other people want that right.
Married people get special treatment from government and in my opinion that is based on love and commitment to each other. I don't really give a shit if gays get to have those privileges if they make the same commitment and I think something is seriously retarded if this is the hill they want to fight and die on. It hurts nobody. Gays aren't goin anywhere. Might as well stop being dickwads to them and making it easier to recruit for the democrat party. Be the party of freedom. Not just freedom for some. Anyone claiming that gay marriage is going to ruin the sanctity of marriage needs to wake the fuck up and realize that its already ruined. The public doesn't give a shit about marriage in general. It only has weight with the individuals making the promise nowdays rather than society. The court didn't force anything on anyone. Now if some gays decide to try and force religious people to marry them against their will we have a big fucking problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 10:53:38 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So gay marriage is going to be forced on me against my will? Don't say "I do". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 12:08:33 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been trying to google it, what amendment in the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage according to this judge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . No it didn't; this is not a democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. When the people(whether by direct vote or through elected representatives), enact a law that is Constitutionally unsound, it is the job of the Judicial branch to strike it down. If you want to ban Gay Marriage there is a process outlined in the Constitution that tells you exactly how to enact an Amendment to do it. I've been trying to google it, what amendment in the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage according to this judge? Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 12:18:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny and must be defended against. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . No it didn't; this is not a democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. When the people(whether by direct vote or through elected representatives), enact a law that is Constitutionally unsound, it is the job of the Judicial branch to strike it down. If you want to ban Gay Marriage there is a process outlined in the Constitution that tells you exactly how to enact an Amendment to do it. I've been trying to google it, what amendment in the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage according to this judge? Probably the 14th Amendment. Like others, I don't care enough about gay marriage for it to be a voting issue for me, but as a libertarian I think everyone should be free to do what makes them happy as long as it doesn't hurt or negatively affect someone else. I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that gays getting married will have an adverse effect on others, especially considering the current state of marriage in this country. From a strategic point of view, it is flat out idiotic for the Republican Party to die on this sword. Lets focus on fighting the battles that matter and stop alienating people that we should be trying to win over to our side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 12:35:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Gay farmer couples should be able to protect their marijuana fields with the same weaponry as the god damn army.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 1:46:12 AM EDT
[#22]
I'm not fan of gay marriage, but if we want to win elections there are some battles that we have to admit we've lost (at least for the foreseeable future), and gay marriage is one of them.
It is worth noting where the battle was lost, and that was in the high schools and colleges. Conservatives looked the other way while liberals flooded the schools with their ideology and it will take more than one generation to turn that around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 3:16:48 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not fan of gay marriage, but if we want to win elections there are some battles that we have to admit we've lost (at least for the foreseeable future), and gay marriage is one of them. It is worth noting where the battle was lost, and that was in the high schools and colleges. Conservatives looked the other way while liberals flooded the schools with their ideology and it will take more than one generation to turn that around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 6:17:36 AM EDT
[#24]
I don't take issue with Gay marriage, so much as I take issue with the State now *DEMANDING* preachers marry homosexual couples.
What next? Are we going to force Christian preachers to perform satanic rituals?  Forcing someone to do something that is against their religious belief, on the penalty of death for non-compliance... is the height of tyranny. I don't even consider myself religious anymore.... but this I find totally detestable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 6:34:08 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't take issue with Gay marriage, so much as I take issue with the State now *DEMANDING* preachers marry homosexual couples. What next? Are we going to force Christian preachers to perform satanic rituals? Forcing someone to do something that is against their religious belief, on the penalty of death for non-compliance... is the height of tyranny. I don't even consider myself religious anymore.... but this I find totally detestable. If a preacher opens a subway does the preacher have to sell sandwiches to satanists, muslims and jews? I have not heard of a church, synagogue, mosque or temple being forced to marry homosexuals. Is the penalty for refusing to marry homosexuals a capital offense punishable by death or something? that would be BIG news to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 8:36:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So gay marriage is going to be forced on me against my will? I don't think they made it mandatory that you participate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 10:03:50 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Forcing someone to do something that is against their religious belief, on the penalty of death for non-compliance... is the height of tyranny. I don't even consider myself religious anymore.... but this I find totally detestable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't take issue with Gay marriage, so much as I take issue with the State now *DEMANDING* preachers marry homosexual couples. What next? Are we going to force Christian preachers to perform satanic rituals? Forcing someone to do something that is against their religious belief, on the penalty of death for non-compliance... is the height of tyranny. I don't even consider myself religious anymore.... but this I find totally detestable. If a preacher opens a subway does the preacher have to sell sandwiches to satanists, muslims and jews? I have not heard of a church, synagogue, mosque or temple being forced to marry homosexuals. Is the penalty for refusing to marry homosexuals a capital offense punishable by death or something? that would be BIG news to me. COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony. http://www.americanclarion.com/govt-orders-ministers-counterfeit-marriage-jail-34212 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 2:37:11 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't take issue with Gay marriage, so much as I take issue with the State now *DEMANDING* preachers marry homosexual couples. What next? Are we going to force Christian preachers to perform satanic rituals? Forcing someone to do something that is against their religious belief, on the penalty of death for non-compliance... is the height of tyranny. I don't even consider myself religious anymore.... but this I find totally detestable. Also profit wedding chapels don't really have a leg to stand on saying that the marriages are a sacred institution while marrying people who have no interest in religion but just want something to take pictures of other than a courthouse wedding. their motivation is money not god. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 4:00:33 PM EDT
[#29]
I always gravitate towards more freedom over less. Gay marriage? I could care less, the government should not be involved at all and I don't care who marries whom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 8:05:27 PM EDT
[#30]
I knew a gay couple where one had a nice job, made a bunch of money, and they lived in a nice big house with two stories, a pool, etc. The other had no job, and a child (from before they "realized" they were gay) with special needs. Because they were essentially roommates by law, the one with the kid got all kinds of health care, food, and cash assistance from the State, to the tune of $30k per year PLUS special care (free babysitting), and behavioral health benefits for the child. So maybe gay marriage will save the tax payers some money. And as far as I'm concerned, people should be able to marry whomever they please. Makes no difference to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:32:07 AM EDT
[#31]
So did they overturn a law, or article 30 of the state constitution?
No news sources seem to be clear on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:19:27 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . The problem with your argument is that states DON'T HAVE RIGHTS and NEVER have. States are governments, and along with the Federal government, they have POWERS derived from the PEOPLE. Only PEOPLE have rights. We as a People recognized a long time ago that everyone's rights are to be treated equally. We frequently fail at this. Slavery is but one example. I have felt for a long time that government has absolutely no business in the "marriage business". If the government wants to grant civil unions for tax and other legal reasons, so be it; let people if they wish, get "married" as they see fit in their places of worship. If they want legal protections outside of their religious beliefs, pick up a civil union, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:24:35 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been trying to google it, what amendment in the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage according to this judge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . No it didn't; this is not a democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. When the people(whether by direct vote or through elected representatives), enact a law that is Constitutionally unsound, it is the job of the Judicial branch to strike it down. If you want to ban Gay Marriage there is a process outlined in the Constitution that tells you exactly how to enact an Amendment to do it. I've been trying to google it, what amendment in the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage according to this judge? The 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:26:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't take issue with Gay marriage, so much as I take issue with the State now *DEMANDING* preachers marry homosexual couples. What next? Are we going to force Christian preachers to perform satanic rituals?
Forcing someone to do something that is against their religious belief, on the penalty of death for non-compliance... is the height of tyranny. I don't even consider myself religious anymore.... but this I find totally detestable. Where has this been done successfully? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 5:51:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with your argument is that states DON'T HAVE RIGHTS and NEVER have. States are governments, and along with the Federal government, they have POWERS derived from the PEOPLE. Only PEOPLE have rights. We as a People recognized a long time ago that everyone's rights are to be treated equally. We frequently fail at this. Slavery is but one example. I have felt for a long time that government has absolutely no business in the "marriage business". If the government wants to grant civil unions for tax and other legal reasons, so be it; let people if they wish, get "married" as they see fit in their places of worship. If they want legal protections outside of their religious beliefs, pick up a civil union, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . The problem with your argument is that states DON'T HAVE RIGHTS and NEVER have. States are governments, and along with the Federal government, they have POWERS derived from the PEOPLE. Only PEOPLE have rights. We as a People recognized a long time ago that everyone's rights are to be treated equally. We frequently fail at this. Slavery is but one example. I have felt for a long time that government has absolutely no business in the "marriage business". If the government wants to grant civil unions for tax and other legal reasons, so be it; let people if they wish, get "married" as they see fit in their places of worship. If they want legal protections outside of their religious beliefs, pick up a civil union, too. Ok ,so why do some states require photo id and docs to vote and others don't . why is pot legal in some states and not others. ? In Az we have open carry ,but not in Cali, The states do have rights . And this administration has jacked the constitution multiple times , I see no place in the constitution that give any one like BHO the right to bypass congress , or have the latitude to inforce or not inforce the laws already on the books .immigration is a fine example This is BHO and the left bypassing the will of the people plain and simple . |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:09:32 PM EDT
[#36]
Seriously OP, get real. What on earth makes you think it should be ok for you to do something, but not for someone else?
Now, in a truly free society, gov't would not have anything to do with marriage- after all, it is a private relationship between consenting adults. BUT, as long as it does, and it grants special privileges to those who participate in it, you have no business using force (gov't) to restrict people from it. I've never met you, and I don't pay attention to specific users names or avatars, so I have no way of putting this in context of anything else you have said in the past, but you sure as hell sound like a bigot. Don't hide behind the "it's a slippery slope" argument, that's bullshit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:44:03 PM EDT
[#37]
I do not think that is a fair or good comparison , race color or creed is one thing sexual preference is something else all together. As I said B4 for me it is about what the majority of citizens want ,not what some left wing ass hole in power thinks it should be .This is taxation without representation . Just like the affordable health care act . IMHO the government has no biz dictating relationships . Seams to me the gov have been down this road B4 with plural marriage . Just how is it that a man can not have multiple wives ,but can marry another man or a woman can marry another women ? What next ,some fool will want to marry his horse ? As it stands now plural marriage should be legal also .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:55:32 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not think that is a fair or good comparison , race color or creed is one thing sexual preference is something else all together. As I said B4 for me it is about what the majority of citizens want ,not what some left wing ass hole in power thinks it should be .This is taxation without representation . Just like the affordable health care act . IMHO the government has no biz dictating relationships . Seams to me the gov have been down this road B4 with plural marriage . Just how is it that a man can not have multiple wives ,but can marry another man or a woman can marry another women ? What next ,some fool will want to marry his horse ? As it stands now plural marriage should be legal also . Sexual preference has a biological component, so does skin color. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:08:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Plural marriage should be allowed.a horse cannot consent to marriage. What happens between consenting adults is nobody's business until it directly affects others.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:57:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not think that is a fair or good comparison , race color or creed is one thing sexual preference is something else all together. How is it different? It's part of the way you are born, you have no control over it any more than your height or the color of your hair. It's sexual orientation, not sexual preference. Homosexuals are born homosexual, the same way heterosexuals are born heterosexual. If you think it's a preference, I'm very curious to know how old you were and exactly what thought process went through your head when you decided to like girls. As I said B4 for me it is about what the majority of citizens want ,not what some left wing ass hole in power thinks it should be . Just because tyranny is coming from the majority does not make it any less tyrannical. For some reason, I think you would be singing a different tune if the majority of people one day decided to ban and confiscate all guns. This is taxation without representation . Just like the affordable health care act . IMHO the government has no biz dictating relationships . But the gov't does dictate relationships. It gives heterosexual couples special benefits that it denies to homosexual couples. Taxes, social security when a spouse dies, the ability to pass IRA/401k to a surviving spouse, child custody... Nevermind the things socially denied to them, like hospital visitation or employer provided health insurance. If anything, the homosexuals are being taxed without representation, as they are forced to pay for heterosexual couples childrens schools, while having a harder time to adopt because they are not a "real couple" It is telling the homosexual group they are less valuable than the heterosexuals. They are not as human, they don't count. Seams to me the gov have been down this road B4 with plural marriage . Just how is it that a man can not have multiple wives ,but can marry another man or a woman can marry another women ? What next ,some fool will want to marry his horse ? Consenting adults should be free to enter as many or as few private relationships as they please, as long as they do not infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. As it stands now plural marriage should be legal also . Well, at least we agree on something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:27:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As it stands now plural marriage should be legal also . I believe one state level court has already ruled that they are |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:42:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seriously OP, get real. What on earth makes you think it should be ok for you to do something, but not for someone else? Now, in a truly free society, gov't would not have anything to do with marriage- after all, it is a private relationship between consenting adults. BUT, as long as it does, and it grants special privileges to those who participate in it, you have no business using force (gov't) to restrict people from it. I've never met you, and I don't pay attention to specific users names or avatars, so I have no way of putting this in context of anything else you have said in the past, but you sure as hell sound like a bigot. Don't hide behind the "it's a slippery slope" argument, that's bullshit. http://dudelol.com/img/just-imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years..jpeg You are in the wrong thread.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:38:47 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok ,so why do some states require photo id and docs to vote and others don't . why is pot legal in some states and not others. ? In Az we have open carry ,but not in Cali, The states do have rights . And this administration has jacked the constitution multiple times , I see no place in the constitution that give any one like BHO the right to bypass congress , or have the latitude to inforce or not inforce the laws already on the books .immigration is a fine example This is BHO and the left bypassing the will of the people plain and simple . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Could care less if they ate shit and howled at the moon , but my problem with this is STAT'E'S RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA JUST GOT ASS FUCKED ON MAIN STREET IN BROAD DAYLIGHT . The problem with your argument is that states DON'T HAVE RIGHTS and NEVER have. States are governments, and along with the Federal government, they have POWERS derived from the PEOPLE. Only PEOPLE have rights. We as a People recognized a long time ago that everyone's rights are to be treated equally. We frequently fail at this. Slavery is but one example. I have felt for a long time that government has absolutely no business in the "marriage business". If the government wants to grant civil unions for tax and other legal reasons, so be it; let people if they wish, get "married" as they see fit in their places of worship. If they want legal protections outside of their religious beliefs, pick up a civil union, too. Ok ,so why do some states require photo id and docs to vote and others don't . why is pot legal in some states and not others. ? In Az we have open carry ,but not in Cali, The states do have rights . And this administration has jacked the constitution multiple times , I see no place in the constitution that give any one like BHO the right to bypass congress , or have the latitude to inforce or not inforce the laws already on the books .immigration is a fine example This is BHO and the left bypassing the will of the people plain and simple . Those aren't rights, those are laws the people gave the states power to enact. The people can revoke that power if they choose. Also, the Constitution is a document of "Negative Rights". "A Negative Right" restrains other persons or governments by limiting their actions toward or against the right holder. You can speak your mind without permission from the government, for example. "Positive Rights" provide the right holder with a claim against another person or the state for some good, service, or treatment. If you had a "right" to welfare, that would require the government to provide it. That would be a "Positive Right". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 1:17:29 PM EDT
[#44]
LOOKS LIKE IT IS A MOOT POINT NOW .
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
