Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,016 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
.... that has brought me to the point of saying I wouldn't vote for a Republican for dog catcher.

At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal. The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/mo ... 16320.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,551 Posts
yeah i read that today and was amazed at how stupid it is. I guess there's a shortage of key issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
Sure would have loved to be a fly on the wall to see how that came about, maybe something like:
"Supreme court says law violates the Constitution I think we should run a platform of supporting un-Constitutional laws, that should be a good way to show the public we know what we're doing."
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
I never understood why government wanted to get in the middle of two consenting adults who want to join into a legal arrangement with each other. After all, when it comes to the state, that is all that marriage is. Leave "who" should be married up to the people.

When you marry someone it just like saying, we share our money, we share our home, and other assets. Its a legal arrangement in the eyes of the law and that's how it should remain. Also, in death, this is who I want our assets to go to in this order, or who they want to watch over their children until the reach legal adult age.

Now morals, ethics, and religion are a totally different subject.

Also, the government is there to do one thing, protect the rights of both people in that arrangement in case they want to dissolve the legal arrangement, ie: divorce, death, ect. Then the government is there make sure that both parties follow the legal arrangement that they both knowingly entered into.

Its really not that big of a freaking deal. Why is government involved anyway? They shouldn't be.

One thing I don't really agree with is people marrying their dog or a plant, because those objects cannot consent are not human.
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
jlcnuke said:
Sure would have loved to be a fly on the wall to see how that came about, maybe something like:
"Supreme court says law violates the Constitution I think we should run a platform of supporting un-Constitutional laws, that should be a good way to show the public we know what we're doing."
:lol: Hilarious. I doubt that much thought actually went into it. Its called pandering to the religious right. :cantsay:

Its what the polls say they want so we'll support it, whether it is constitutional or not. Sort of like the far left about gun control.

Also, there are just those out there that want the government to force their beliefs on other people, legality be damned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,992 Posts
EJR914 said:
I never understood why government wanted to get in the middle of two consenting adults who want to join into a legal arrangement with each other. After all, when it comes to the state, that is all that marriage is. Leave "who" should be married up to the people.
Well, that depends on what the State defines a marriage to be.

The 10th Amendment in a nutshell says that whatever the powers that the states have not given to the FED nor prohibited by the state, are reserved to the States or to the people.

Now, Homosexuality is not a FED issue. They have no power to even weigh in on the issue. That leaves it to the state and the people. That being said allow me to use the Arkansas Constitution. It defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The way the AR Constitution is Amended is the Legislative branch passes a proposed amendment, then it is voted on by the people of the State during the next election.

A side note, the people of the state can also have a law or Constitutional amendment added to the ballot. The proposal is submitted to the State AG, if the wording/format/etc is ok, and it doesn't conflict with another state law (unless that issue is addressed in the proposed issue) then the AG has to approve the measure. The measure then must be petitioned, meaning the person or group submitting it must gather a certain number of signatures from the registered voters in the state, the number is determined by a percentage of the people who voted during the election for Governor. If the required signatures are gathered it is placed on the ballot and voted on by the people during the next election. If it passes it becomes law/Constitutional amendment and the State Legislator can not change it. It can only be changed in the same way it was approved.

Anyway, the state of AR bans same sex marriage. The state Constitution has it in there and it was voted on by the people. So, for this state, the issue of same sex marriage is a state issue. Now, say the state Constitution didn't address it, then it becomes an issue of the people. This was seen in California. The people voted on it, but a Federal judge overstepped his power and banned it. That is a whole nother issue there....

So what's the answer here? One state may say it's ok, another say it's not, another not have it addressed. I think the gay community, and even the hetero community, should be advocating the abolishment of a marriage license. A marriage is a issue of the clergy, for whatever religion you are. The state has nothing to do with it. It wasn't until the mid 1800 that states started to require a license...I think it was Boston first did it, because they realized it was a revenue generating source.

Do away with marriage license and the issue of same sex marriages are obsolete. This also frees up the local courts....no more divorce issues. If people no longer want to be a couple then they can just go about their separate ways.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
jlcnuke said:
Sure would have loved to be a fly on the wall to see how that came about, maybe something like:
"Supreme court says law violates the Constitution I think we should run a platform of supporting un-Constitutional laws, that should be a good way to show the public we know what we're doing."
How about the facebook wall of the former Montana Tea Party President? Close enough?
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,937 Posts
RedDawnTheMusical said:
EJR914 said:
Its called pandering to the religious right.
Bingo.
Be careful; that might offend members of the religious right. :popcorn:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
My 2 cents.... Love is strange...just ask my wife of 27 years... but marriage and civil union are to separate things. Where does it tally up against the issues facing us today...not even in the line of sight....

Slammy
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,937 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,809 Posts
slammy said:
RedDawnTheMusical said:
Mrs_Esterhouse said:
RedDawnTheMusical said:
EJR914 said:
Its called pandering to the religious right.
Bingo.
Be careful; that might offend members of the religious right. :popcorn:
Wouldn't be my first time...
Course you carry a TRP so we cut you some slack....
Lol - I knew the TRP would get me out of trouble someday - just didn't envision that this was how it would pan out....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
gruntpain1775 said:
EJR914 said:
I never understood why government wanted to get in the middle of two consenting adults who want to join into a legal arrangement with each other. After all, when it comes to the state, that is all that marriage is. Leave "who" should be married up to the people.
Well, that depends on what the State defines a marriage to be.

The 10th Amendment in a nutshell says that whatever the powers that the states have not given to the FED nor prohibited by the state, are reserved to the States or to the people.

Now, Homosexuality is not a FED issue. They have no power to even weigh in on the issue. That leaves it to the state and the people. That being said allow me to use the Arkansas Constitution. It defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The way the AR Constitution is Amended is the Legislative branch passes a proposed amendment, then it is voted on by the people of the State during the next election.

A side note, the people of the state can also have a law or Constitutional amendment added to the ballot. The proposal is submitted to the State AG, if the wording/format/etc is ok, and it doesn't conflict with another state law (unless that issue is addressed in the proposed issue) then the AG has to approve the measure. The measure then must be petitioned, meaning the person or group submitting it must gather a certain number of signatures from the registered voters in the state, the number is determined by a percentage of the people who voted during the election for Governor. If the required signatures are gathered it is placed on the ballot and voted on by the people during the next election. If it passes it becomes law/Constitutional amendment and the State Legislator can not change it. It can only be changed in the same way it was approved.

Anyway, the state of AR bans same sex marriage. The state Constitution has it in there and it was voted on by the people. So, for this state, the issue of same sex marriage is a state issue. Now, say the state Constitution didn't address it, then it becomes an issue of the people. This was seen in California. The people voted on it, but a Federal judge overstepped his power and banned it. That is a whole nother issue there....

So what's the answer here? One state may say it's ok, another say it's not, another not have it addressed. I think the gay community, and even the hetero community, should be advocating the abolishment of a marriage license. A marriage is a issue of the clergy, for whatever religion you are. The state has nothing to do with it. It wasn't until the mid 1800 that states started to require a license...I think it was Boston first did it, because they realized it was a revenue generating source.

Do away with marriage license and the issue of same sex marriages are obsolete. This also frees up the local courts....no more divorce issues. If people no longer want to be a couple then they can just go about their separate ways.
I personally think the major problem with "marriage licenses" is that they are associated with "marriage." A marriage is a religious ceremony and holds no legal weight. A marriage license is a legal document that gives rights/privileges but means nothing to a church. When the "legal" document was invented for the joining of 2 people into a single entity as far as the state was concerned we screwed up. We should have respected people's privacy but instead we called it a religious document. Marriage is a "rite" or "ceremony." The legal ramifications of loving someone should not have been associated with a religion. We screwed up on that in our past.

The nice thing about our country is that we can fix our screw ups. We can admit that slavery is wrong. We can admit that women should have the same standing and opportunities as anyone else. We can admit we made mistakes in the past and correct them to make everyone equal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
I too think this an issue that should be left to the states respectively. Moreover, it is more religious in nature.

At the same time, isnt it interesting that those who are constantly crying to keep out of their bedrooms are the same folks who are constantly shoving their sexual preferences down our throats?

And hey -- thanks for putting Obama in the presidency with your wise choices :righton: :shock:
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
Why should marriage have to be religious at all? You know their are people that do not believe in a god that may want to join in a legal contract with one another that says that was was the two of theirs is now both of theirs. And in case of their death they want their assets to go to certain places. Or some person will be the care taker of their children.

I think it should just be a contract that the state can help make sure is legally binding and everyone's rights are respected.

Government should not be involved in saying who can enter into this contract as long as they are two consent adults.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,521 Posts
Well, Georgia already has the sodomy law ( :yum: & :3hat:) on the books so it looks like we have been happy so far with the practice of homosexual lovemaking being illegal.... I have a hard time believing that the sodomy law was aimed at heterosexual couples at its inception. :sly:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,286 Posts
EJR914 said:
Its called pandering to the religious right. :cantsay:
which brings me to one of my absolute favorite sayings when it comes to government and religion........ "who the ---- are you to turn your views into my laws?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,992 Posts
EJR914 said:
Why should marriage have to be religious at all? You know their are people that do not believe in a god that may want to join in a legal contract with one another that says that was was the two of theirs is now both of theirs. And in case of their death they want their assets to go to certain places. Or some person will be the care taker of their children.

I think it should just be a contract that the state can help make sure is legally binding and everyone's rights are respected.

Government should not be involved in saying who can enter into this contract as long as they are two consent adults.
Isnt that what a will is for? Gov. Should have no bearing at all on who wants to shack up with who. Even in taxes. Each should pay their own.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top