Applications Google
Menu principal

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"TIME FOR TODAY'S LIGHTNING ROD"

15 Comments -

1 – 15 of 15
Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Kevin...well said...the Judge's decision states in laymen's terms that gay marriage cannot be stifled via Prop 8 as it is a violation of the 14th amendment and the state has " no rational basis" to deny same sex marriage to those couples wishing to get married.

I believe the 9th Circuit will affirm the Judge's decision and then the proponents of Prop 8 probably will file a Writ of Certeori for the Supreme Court to hear the matter....time will tell as this winds it way there,but it certainly is a huge win for those of us in America today that believe in equal rights and same sex marriage.

BTW we dont have the right for Prop 8 type referendums here in Connecticut, so the right wing and tea party folks cannot overturn our Supremem Court decision to allow same sex marriage.

August 4, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

unfortunally come and sense has been lost for the most part in this country... I MISS THE USA of just not so long ago.

August 4, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Blogger Matt said...

As far the the Church goes, their views on gays stem from their close ties to the government during history, particularly during Feudal rule.

The government gets its taxes from the people and when the people use condoms, have abortions, and pick someone of the same sex as a life partner the population can't grow. Hence less "surfs" to tax.

At lest the Church is consistent in their beliefs so when a Priest is caught molesting an alter boy they are dealt with harshly. Oh' wait a second, that's right they are forgiven and moved to a new parish.

Live and let live. If two people are happy and want to get married they should be allowed. Who are we to pass judgment?

(send your angry email to Kevin)

August 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Anonymous PETER BRUSH said...

Live and let live. If two people are happy and want to get married they should be allowed. Who are we to pass judgment?

The question is not whether to be tolerant; the states and the country are. It was never the purpose of the institution of marriage to discriminate against homosexuals. And, it was certainly never the point of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution to address the question of sexual orientation. The point is that this judge is stretching (to say the least) the terms of the constitution to get a result that is more properly the function of the political branches to achieve (or not). A victory for "equal rights," perhaps, but a great loss to those of us who believe in a constitutional republic with limited and enumerated powers delegated to different branches and states. I'm with anon.; miss the U.S. of not so long ago.

August 5, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 5, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Blogger Matt said...

Peter, I understand what you are saying but I think the real point is it's NO ONES business to legislate (hence judge) who and how people want to share their lives with but the people who are in that relationship.

Arguing over what branch of government should be deciding a person's life style is like debating over which thug should be allowed to rob me when I'm walking down the street.

It never ceases to amaze me how willingly people forfeit their basic human rights over to our government.

August 5, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Matt:
To what "basic human right" do you refer? I'm as opposed as the next guy to the ongoing expansion of the government, particularly the federal one. I'm all on board with the voters of Mo. who Tuesday said, "hell no" to the Obamanoid mandate to buy health insurance. But, California didn't deny any "right." No judgment was made about anybody's "style" of life. The institution of marriage has been around for many a long, long year, and nowhere nohow involved homosexuals, as such. The 14th amendment has been around since the Republicans won the Civil War, but was never intended to require that states provide "equality" to all sexual "styles." What we have is the deliberate destruction of bourgeois institutions by revolutionary egalitarians in spite of the constitution.

August 5, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Blogger Matt said...

I refer to the basic rights to choose that we all have as human beings as well as the United States Declaration of Independence...

"All Men are Created Equal" and the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," penned by Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, two true founding fathers of American liberty.

How is telling a man and a women they can marry then telling two people of the same sex they can't equality? That's an agenda!

The entire notion of equality has been lost as our government has become hijacked over the last few centuries by corporations and organizations who have slowly eroded our freedom of choice.

Like Kevin's blog title says... It's "We the People" Not "We the People, Unless you're gay".

August 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

The 14th amandment was put in at the urging of certain members of Congress to deal with equality of freed slaves AND those OTHERS that Congress knew were left behind in terms of equal rights.The equal protection and due process clauses do not limit themselves only to freed slaves and those the arguments of Mr Brush and others must fall to the wayside. I do know that the citizen clause of the 14 th amendment over-ruled that awful Dred Scott decision, which of course only dealt with slavery of afro-americans.

In addition...it is a faulty premise to wish for us to revert back to a simpler time as some do( this would mean afro americans would once again be slaves ?) and bemoan an ever increasing federal government.The fact is that we are nothing like we were in 1812 and we are in fact the strongest empire in the history of the world.That fact means that the federal and state governments by their nature in this Empire would be large and would be complicated.Society to far to complex to revert to how our founding fathers lived and our Empire is far to strong and complex to have to resort to some form of limited government.

August 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

I refer to the basic rights to choose that we all have as human beings as well as the United States Declaration of Independence...

Right. But, the signatories to the Declaration, and in particular the "all men ... endowed with (natural rights)" lingo therein, never had in mind same sex marriage. Hell, they never had in mind legalization of sodomy. They were simply not libertarians. And in any case, the Declaration is not a juridical instrument. You'll find even less natural rights lingo in the Constitution, and, not a single use of the word "equal" until the 14th amendment after Civil War. And, again, you're kidding yourself if you think the states that ratified the 14th amendment were endorsing gay marriage.

August 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Society to far to complex to revert to how our founding fathers lived and our Empire is far to strong and complex to have to resort to some form of limited government.

And, while Matt relies on the 18th century document referring to universal natural rights, Bruce claims history demands that we disregard same as anachronistic.

August 5, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Blogger Matt said...

Peter, I think our disconnect on this issue is you are relying on man made documents to support your case. If we laid out all the laws and documents as to who decides what's acceptable in a marriage you might be right, it's not for the Feds to decide.

However, I don't care what a bunch of rich people being influenced by the Church say. I'm relying on the simple fact people need to be treated as equals no matter what a man made document might proclaim.

The Judge did this and I applaud that single action.

As far as your second comment...

At the time the Declaration of Independence was written it was from a perspective of just coming out from under British rule. Our founding fathers wrote it as a reminder that we need to treat each other as equals and not allow ourselves to fall into a have vs have not form of government like we had under British rule. I was referring to those founding principals which seem to have been lost over the years. I was not referring to the level of governance at that time.

Like Bruce said the government is dynamic and needs to change with the times and has become so big you can't just reverse it anymore.

(Personally I think history is repeating itself right now in America with the new ruler being the American Banks instead of the British Banks, but that's another topic)

August 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ay Dios Santo.

Hombre this sound to me like a:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9KXkDMEPag

Papi,

nothing wrong with that man !!!

August 5, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kevin, Angel,

Diana said I'm coming out
I want the world to know
Got to let it show
I'm coming out
I want the world to know
I got to let it show.

August 5, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Angel Morales is deep in the closet ?

August 6, 2010 at 12:28 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot