The New Classified Ad System is live. Please head here for details: https://gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/new-classified-ad-system-tutorial.112735/
......... snip ................. when in fact they just want the ability to enter into marriage with a legally consenting adult, without the restrictions of a religion they may or may not subscribe to. ........... snip .............
It would not surprise me to find that our dear beloved leader is really the antichrist in disguise.
This is a naive perception of the situation. It presumes a responsive legislature, an executive who carries out duly passed laws and a judicial branch who interprets the laws as originally drafted.
What we have instead is a legislature which is only responsive to their own agenda and those who pay to keep them in power or deliver uninformed voters (real or imagined) to re-elect them. We have a president-king who governs according to his wishes-consent of the governed be damned. And we have a federal judiciary body who are unelected but are crammed down our throats by these same clowns.
This republic was founded on the assumption that the people would elect virtuous men to govern them.
Those days are over. There are no virtuous men in government anymore.
I will not comply.
The Republic of the U.S. has made a hard turn away from Constitutional Liberty this week. We've been moving away from Constitutional Liberty over the last several decades but this week it really sped up. I don't know if it will slow back down and I don't know what's next.
People are debating the question "should gays be allowed to marry?", but as usual, they're debating the wrong question. The correct question should be "why is the Federal government getting involved in something where they have no Constitutional authority to do so?"
Marriage of straight people and gay people is not mentioned or discussed anywhere in the document of the Constitution. Absolutely no authority was given to the Federal government to oversee marriages of any kind in any way. Therefore, reading the 10th Amendment, it clearly states that ALL power not granted to the Federal government should be delegated to the States and the People.
So back to the original question, the answer is not "yes, let gays marry" or "no, stop gays from marrying."
The correct answer should be "keep the Fed out of it and let the States and People govern themselves on this matter."
And that's my full opinion on this gay marriage subject. That it's NOT a gay marriage issue at all. It's an issue of Constitutional authority. And it went the wrong way.
I'm with Brandon, I didn't send letter or emails or petitions or anything.
Of course, I don't think it's the governments right tonatop two consenting, legal adults from entering I to a binding legal agreement.
Of course, it's much easier to call corrupt government, illegal rule, and promise the threat of revolt. This same government that we claim is incapable of managing a budget or waging a proper war is somehow capable of maintaining a puppet front while it quietly executed a goverment wide takeover.
I think Brandon is spot on. One side fought harder than the other. But please, gentleman, feel free to move or start a war or whatever.
And I think what two adults do in a bed room is a huge leap from animals or children, if you really believe that's the direction we are going all I can do is assure you I won't support that.
Caveman, they didn't whole helluva lot more than just send an email. People were beaten in streets, sometimes to death. Public and private shame, even from families. Unless we are willing to commit time and effort, and I'm not talking about the time dictated to a internet conversation, we don't stand a chance.
Look at abortion. Restrictions on abortion are gaining ground. And be held up by the courts. It's about effort and exposure.
Certainly religion is cited, by both sides, in this argument about homosexual marriage and a good number of people define the situation by religion alone. But just as many people simply see it as a question of human decency and civilized behavior. The homosexuals have worked long and hard to have their particular perversion judged to be legitimate. Sure enough, they've done it and by the highest court in the land no less. But, that doesn't make the practice of homosexuality wholesome......... not by a long shot.
Contrary to what CNN may tell you, it is not abnormal to believe that inserting a man's penis into another mans hairy anus is just plane disgusting even though the so called progressives would say that holding such a belief is sure evidence that you have an illness.
Whatever argument you make for homosexual marriage can be made in exactly the same way for other forms of deviant sexual behavior, pedophilia and beastiality to name just two. It won't be long before the SCOTA hears a case about "trans-generational-marriage" (picture Richard Simmons and his 7 year old boyfriend), unless the animal lovers of the world get there first. If one can self identify as "black", surely a German Shepard can self identify as a wife, wouldn't you agree?
Ignoring the small percentage of deviants in a population is one thing. Making their behavior legitimate, and even legally wonderful, is something else. And forcing civilized people to embrace it is .......... well ............. a sad state of affairs.
i email jeff miller over a month & half ago, got an automatted response, nothing since then...our reps are insulated from the real life, and do no have to answer to us anymore...just a facade..
we can email all we want (and i do) and we'll all get the same return polished letter. Unless people are standing around about to riot over an issue seems no one has to listen.