A primary example of people who just don't get it.

[03_SHOOTER]

Now, I want to be clear about one thing, I am NOT posting this to in any way take a stance either for or against Prop 8, nor am I making any commentary on homosexuality or religion. I am however posting this as a very clear demonstration of the complete and utter disregard that some people have for the Rights of others.

You cannot intellectually honestly complain about your civil rights being denied, and turn right around and infringe on someone else's civil rights, much less assault them!

Bk23Ild2FjU

[SlightlyCatholic]

Not to sound bigoted, but since when are homosexuals a "civil rights group"? The big problem with "gay rights" is the fact that people who hold traditional Christian values about marraige are being painted as "intolerant" and "inflexible".

[DoubleHelix]

Prop 8 was nothing short of ridiculous. We have a ton of problems going on in this state, and people sunk millions we could've used into both sides of that campaign. It passed somewhere around a 52-48% vote. Since then, the opponents of 8 have flooded California streets. Most have been very peaceful, just trying to explain their message, but things like that aren't going to do them any favors.

I don't see where that guy gets off on insulting a lady for her beliefs, even less when its an elderly citizen. Somebody really ought to go out to Palm Springs and kick his ass

[SlightlyCatholic]

Prop 8 was nothing short of ridiculous.

I'd rather have the people of the state of California decide what they want for themselves rather than the California Supreme Court pushing a liberal agenda. If it happens out West, it'll hit the other liberal coast (my homeland) in no time. If my state's Supreme Court decided out of nowhere that I need to legally recognized gay marraige as valid without my vote, I'd be pretty upset.

[DoubleHelix]

Indeed, its much better than the court deciding for us. However, the proposition will be back in front of every judge in California before too much longer. What will follow is that there will be a similar prop the next time we head to the ballot. And so on, and so forth. It's gearing up to be a non-stop ride because neither side is willing to call it quits and back off. Meanwhile the Golden State continues hemorrhaging money towards and against this while were floating in an ocean of debt.

Prop 8 passed in this valley by about 3 votes for yes to every 1 vote for no. I'd like to see this put down and away now, so we can focus on the more important stuff. Like the state government trying to stick it's greedy hand into the surplus of money the cities in this valley have made.

[DaveIn3D]

41 years ago it was illegal for whites to marry blacks. The Warren court decided on June 12, 1967 to allow Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man to marrry. Something notable from the court..

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."


Replace race with sexual preference and you get the same result. The people dont always make the most rational decisions. Nowadays inter-racial marriage is and not really looked down upon in most parts of the country. This is not saying however that the courts always act reasonable, but they usually have a better perspective of how their decisions will sound 20 years after the fact.

However, do not confuse this as my personal policy on gay marriage. I am for civil unions. If christians want to keep the term 'marriage' sacred, good. By all means..keep it. But do not deny people the same protections afforded to married same sex couples just because of their sexual orientation. My cousin, who i am close to, is a full bore dyke. Her last boyfriend was 10 years ago and he was one of my friends. He dumped her because he thought she was a lesbo. Turns out he was right. There is no going back for her. Are you saying she doesnt rate the same benefits as traditionally married couples?

-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

41 years ago it was illegal for whites to marry blacks. The Warren court decided on June 12, 1967 to allow Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man to marrry. Something notable from the court..



Replace race with sexual preference and you get the same result. The people dont always make the most rational decisions. Nowadays inter-racial marriage is and not really looked down upon in most parts of the country. This is not saying however that the courts always act reasonable, but they usually have a better perspective of how their decisions will sound 20 years after the fact.

However, do not confuse this as my personal policy on gay marriage. I am for civil unions. If christians want to keep the term 'marriage' sacred, good. By all means..keep it. But do not deny people the same protections afforded to married same sex couples just because of their sexual orientation. My cousin, who i am close to, is a full bore dyke. Her last boyfriend was 10 years ago and he was one of my friends. He dumped her because he thought she was a lesbo. Turns out he was right. There is no going back for her. Are you saying she doesnt rate the same benefits as traditionally married couples?

-3D

I wasn't wanting to turn this into a discussion on homosexual marriage, but apparantly it cannot be avioded.

Dave, a question if I may, but exactly what "civil rights" are being denied to a homosexual couple that don't pertain to a heterosexual couple that isn't married?

[Billyd]

This looks more like "Free speech for me, but not for thee"

This is a fundamental problem in our society today. No respect for each other. Here is the one thing that everyone seems to have forgotten. If a heterosexual couple marries in Oregon, do they need to re-marry if they move to Florida? No, they don't. Article IV, Section 1, also known as the "Full faith and credit clause," instructs the several states the marriage record in Oregon MUST be recognized in Florida. Now, Florida just passed the Marriage Protection Act whereby a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, because of the "full faith and credit" clause, if a homosexual couple marries in another state, Florida MUST recognize it as such.

[03_SHOOTER]

This looks more like "Free speech for me, but not for thee"

Thank you Billyd, that's exactly what I was looking for. :D The utter and complete hypocrisy of some people never ceases to amaze me. Everyone is so consumed in "what's in it for me" that they never bother to even attempt to look at it from the other side of the equation, or for that matter to even try to punch holes in their own reasoning.

This is a fundamental problem in our society today. No respect for each other.

While I fundamentally agree with you, the number of mindless 'bots' running around today screaming at the top of their lungs about whatever the issue de jure happens to be, with absolutely no concept of reality, makes it VERY hard for me to extend any respect to some of them though.

Here is the one thing that everyone seems to have forgotten. If a heterosexual couple marries in Oregon, do they need to re-marry if they move to Florida? No, they don't. Article IV, Section 1, also known as the "Full faith and credit clause," instructs the several states the marriage record in Oregon MUST be recognized in Florida. Now, Florida just passed the Marriage Protection Act whereby a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, because of the "full faith and credit" clause, if a homosexual couple marries in another state, Florida MUST recognize it as such.

That is a good point, however is it really that simple? For instance, in some States possession of a certain amount of marijuana is 'legal', while in others it's possession is strictly prohibited in any amount. Can you go to California and buy marijuana that is within the legal limits there, but return to your home in another State and claim that it's still legal because you got it in a State where it is legal? Somehow I don't think that a Mississippi Judge would buy that argument.

[Billyd]

That takes us to Article VI, Supremacy Clause. While not intended to debate the merits of the various pharmaceuticals available, and the Constitution mute on this point, if a Californication resident is able to possess at home, why not while on the road in Mississippi?

[O.O.O.]

I've never understood why any government agency should be involved in any living arrangment - much less put their stamp of approval on that arrangement.

If two people want to live together, they certainly can. The problem seems to come with the "authentication" of that decision. Those of a religious bent are more than welcome to receive the blessings of whichever religion they subscribe to. No one stands in their way. The same is true of those that don't follow that path. Needing government validation for how I, or anyone else, chooses to live their lives has always rubbed me the wrong way.

[03_SHOOTER]

I've never understood why any government agency should be involved in any living arrangment - much less put their stamp of approval on that arrangement.

If two people want to live together, they certainly can. The problem seems to come with the "authentication" of that decision. Those of a religious bent are more than welcome to receive the blessings of whichever religion they subscribe to. No one stands in their way. The same is true of those that don't follow that path. Needing government validation for how I, or anyone else, chooses to live their lives has always rubbed me the wrong way.

The reason it is rightly a State (government) issue is because marriage is a contract, and thus falls under Contract Law (see the writings of Blackstone linked to in the "Reference" thread of this Forum).

[03_SHOOTER]

That takes us to Article VI, Supremacy Clause. While not intended to debate the merits of the various pharmaceuticals available, and the Constitution mute on this point, if a Californication resident is able to possess at home, why not while on the road in Mississippi?


Actually, the Constitution isn't mute on it Billyd (at least as SCOTUS has "interpreted" it) and it falls under the Interstate commerce clause (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3)! Also, since the government also has authority in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7 over the "post roads", it therefore has the right to regulate the use of those roads, including forbidding the transportation of unlicensed and untaxed drugs just like they can for unlicensed and untaxed liquor (moonshine).

Isn't this FUN?? :D

[SlightlyCatholic]

Replace race with sexual preference and you get the same result. The people dont always make the most rational decisions. Nowadays inter-racial marriage is and not really looked down upon in most parts of the country. This is not saying however that the courts always act reasonable, but they usually have a better perspective of how their decisions will sound 20 years after the fact.

So you would hold the view that, like race, sexual orientation is something that one is born with? Would you agree with the statement that a gay man cannot choose to be gay but rather is born that way?

[Billyd]

Actually, the Constitution isn't mute on it Billyd (at least as SCOTUS has "interpreted" it) and it falls under the Interstate commerce clause (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3)! Also, since the government also has authority in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7 over the "post roads", it therefore has the right to regulate the use of those roads, including forbidding the transportation of unlicensed and untaxed drugs just like they can for unlicensed and untaxed liquor (moonshine).

Isn't this FUN?? :D

Yes it is! :D
Good point about SCOTUS. I do, however, feel the need to point out that me transporting a substance for my personal use, would not fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause as that IMPLIES transport for distribution. As to use of the post roads, would one not have to prove the road used was actually a post road? And would there not have to be some probable cause to stop and search my mode of transport?

[03_SHOOTER]

Yes it is! :D
Good point about SCOTUS. I do, however, feel the need to point out that me transporting a substance for my personal use, would not fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause as that IMPLIES transport for distribution. As to use of the post roads, would one not have to prove the road used was actually a post road? And would there not have to be some probable cause to stop and search my mode of transport?

This is when I really enjoy these discussions! :D

OK, first things first, since we've not established how much was being carried, that point is debateable, but the amount needed to determine "distribution" varies from State to State. Even if you only had 2 'joints' but had picked one up for your buddy, and he had paid you for it, or even given you gas money to help you on your trip, then that would most assuredly constitute legitimate cause to include charges under the "Interstate Commerce" clause.

As to the post roads, Title 39 United States Code, Part V, Chapter 50, Section 5003 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode39/usc_sec_39_00005003----000-.html) designates that:

The following are post roads:
(1) the waters of the United States, during the time the mail is carried thereon;
(2) railroads or parts of railroads and air routes in operation;
(3) canals, during the time the mail is carried thereon;
(4) public roads, highways, and toll roads during the time the mail is carried thereon; and
(5) letter-carrier routes established for the collection and delivery of mail.
So to me, that means that ANY public road, highway, toll road, or letter carrier route is a "Post Road", and therefore does authorized Congress to regulate the use thereof. That regulation would include speed limits, licence plates, inspection stickers and all the rest of those really annoying (and expensive) things that we have to put up with to be "allowed" to drive. As to "probable cause", in order to keep it simple, I am operating under the assumption that the individual in question had in fact already been pulled over by the applicable law enforcement agency, for a legitimate violation, and the substance in question discovered in the pursuant to a legal search of the individual or their vehicle.

[HairyEyeball]

Given the ‘interpretations’ of the Constitution by SCOTUS on subjects such as affirmative discrimination, congruence with ‘international’ standards and ‘reasonable regulation’ of firearms, as well as decisions such as Miller – reached with no representation from the defense; or the myriad ‘reversals’ directly traceable to the political ideology of its members, one might be well advised to view their rulings, especially those of the mid-XX Century onwards, as transitory at best, politically motivated at worst, and ‘legally binding’ only until such time as the majority complexion of the Court alters.

Although there is reasonable credence for the inclusion of Blackstone’s ‘contractual’ argument, there is a pecuniary aspect to the argument – that by levying a tax on the process under the pretext of ‘licensing’ what is essentially a religious function: The rite of marriage. The intentional mischaracterization of a civil ‘contract’ is a blatant and obvious ploy to impose the supremacy of religious ‘morality’ over the rule of law, in (yet another) clear violation of the admonishment that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”

It is an undeniable verity that the central government has grossly exceeded the authority and powers Constitutionally constraining it, usurping that specifically reserved to both the joint and several States and to ‘we the People’. Why, then, is it permissible for such government intrusion into our bedrooms, but not the bureau drawers or gun safes in those bedrooms? Does that not have the reek of hypocrisy? Is the Constitution – of the United States as a whole or of each individual State – an instrument of law, or one of social engineering? Do we not indeed believe that “…all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”; that just as no person or group has any ‘entitlement’ to greater rights or privileges than his neighbor, there is no licit justification for any individual or group to be denied those rights and privileges?

Whether or not we ‘approve’ of the individual’s choices in ‘the pursuit of happiness’, precisely where in the Constitution – the ‘supreme Law of the Land’ – are we empowered with the legal or moral authority to deny such right?

What a person does in the privacy of his own home is his own ‘business’, unless and until it affects the public good or order, not that of the government or of his neighbor. It logically follows then that the while the fact of such behavior may be ‘morally reprehensible’ to some, it is not ‘illegal’ – and any such attempt to make it so by altering the Constitution, either of a single State or federally of all – is little more than kicking open the door for government restriction of any and all liberties a temporary majority in the legislature or on the bench cares to impose.

With the imposition of an administration and legislature that has clearly and repeatedly, by words and actions, displayed open contempt for the Constitution and the principles upon which the nation was founded, and by which – despite their gradual erosion – it has been governed, by allowing overt discrimination against one generation's ‘n*gg*ers by definition’ are we not granting carte blanche for the similar categorization of firearms owners, of members of one numerically minor religious persuasion, of any group or classification that falls ‘out of favor’?

[O.O.O.]

"The reason it is rightly a State (government) issue is because marriage is a contract, and thus falls under Contract Law (see the writings of Blackstone linked to in the "Reference" thread of this Forum). "

My apologies for not having the time to read your link to Blackstone right now, although I will later.

While a contract may be involved in a marriage (or a non-marriage living arrangement, for that matter), and may a good thing to have regardless of the situation, that is not what I am questioning. If I decide to get married, what I apply for is a license. Unless I am misunderstanding that word, it implies permission from the government. I am saying it is not the role of government to give permission for me to be married.

[O.O.O.]

Sorry, HE, we must have posted at the same time. I do admit that you are a much more eloquent wordsmith than me. :)

[03_SHOOTER]

My apologies for not having the time to read your link to Blackstone right now, although I will later.

While a contract may be involved in a marriage (or a non-marriage living arrangement, for that matter), and may a good thing to have regardless of the situation, that is not what I am questioning. If I decide to get married, what I apply for is a license. Unless I am misunderstanding that word, it implies permission from the government. I am saying it is not the role of government to give permission for me to be married.

It is not that you're asking "permission", you are being granted a "License" as a demonstration that all necessary and legal restrictions and limitations have been met in order for the marriage to be a legal contract. This is necessary in order to ensure that it is in fact a legal contract, and that the property rights of all those involved in the marriage, and/or any children that result from that union, are legally protected.

[03_SHOOTER]

Although there is reasonable credence for the inclusion of Blackstone’s ‘contractual’ argument, there is a pecuniary aspect to the argument – that by levying a tax on the process under the pretext of ‘licensing’ what is essentially a religious function: The rite of marriage. The intentional mischaracterization of a civil ‘contract’ is a blatant and obvious ploy to impose the supremacy of religious ‘morality’ over the rule of law, in (yet another) clear violation of the admonishment that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”

It is an undeniable verity that the central government has grossly exceeded the authority and powers Constitutionally constraining it, usurping that specifically reserved to both the joint and several States and to ‘we the People’. Why, then, is it permissible for such government intrusion into our bedrooms, but not the bureau drawers or gun safes in those bedrooms? Does that not have the reek of hypocrisy? Is the Constitution – of the United States as a whole or of each individual State – an instrument of law, or one of social engineering? Do we not indeed believe that “…all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”; that just as no person or group has any ‘entitlement’ to greater rights or privileges than his neighbor, there is no licit justification for any individual or group to be denied those rights and privileges?

Whether or not we ‘approve’ of the individual’s choices in ‘the pursuit of happiness’, precisely where in the Constitution – the ‘supreme Law of the Land’ – are we empowered with the legal or moral authority to deny such right?

What a person does in the privacy of his own home is his own ‘business’, unless and until it affects the public good or order, not that of the government or of his neighbor. It logically follows then that the while the fact of such behavior may be ‘morally reprehensible’ to some, it is not ‘illegal’ – and any such attempt to make it so by altering the Constitution, either of a single State or federally of all – is little more than kicking open the door for government restriction of any and all liberties a temporary majority in the legislature or on the bench cares to impose.

With the imposition of an administration and legislature that has clearly and repeatedly, by words and actions, displayed open contempt for the Constitution and the principles upon which the nation was founded, and by which – despite their gradual erosion – it has been governed, by allowing overt discrimination against one generation's ‘n*gg*ers by definition’ are we not granting carte blanche for the similar categorization of firearms owners, of members of one numerically minor religious persuasion, of any group or classification that falls ‘out of favor’?

OK, just to play "Devils Advocate" for a moment, is it, or is it not within the rights of the government to regulate contracts, and who may and may not engage in certain contracts? Given that the courts will be called upon to settle any disputes that arise out of contractual disagreements, particularly as they relate to real property, is it not reasonable for the government to establish what particulars they will recognize as "cause", and those persons who will and will not have "standing" to be heard before it's courts in cases of these disputes? To be even more specific, if the government has the right to regulate that a 30-something man may not marry a 12 year old girl, even with her consent, and the consent of her parents, as in the recent case of the FLDS, how can we deny that the government does in fact have the fiduciary and constitutional right to regulate who may contract, whether we agree with the particular exceptions that they select or not?

I believe that my own personal position on this subject is quite clear in that I do not believe that the government has any proper cause to deny anyone the right to engage in a marriage contract provided that the persons involved are in fact willing to contract, and they are able to contract, being of legal age to contract and not having any other reason why they cannot engage in the particular contract as described by Lord Blackstone. I merely wished to point out that, in order to properly be able to defend one's own position, you should also be familiar enough with your opponents position to be able to argue it as well.

[HairyEyeball]

Given the years of debate, I find myself somewhat surprised that you, or all people, would suggest I may not "...be familiar enough with [my] opponents position..."

Unless the Constitution has been amended to specifically enumerate such 'right', it is neither within the purview of the government to 'regulate' contracts between private parties nor to recognize the 'personhood' of a commercial entity as party to such contracts, except insofar as in cases of legal action for breach of such contract by one commercial entity the joint and several owners be considered culpable en masse. Given that 'contract law' is separate and distinct from Constitutional law, and adjudicated in a separate and distinct class of court, the questions are mutually exclusive.

Further, the presumption that the government has some 'right', other than on its own presumption, "...to regulate that a 30-something man may not marry a 12 year old girl..." is a classic example of 'assuming facts not in evidence' - indeed, it presupposes yet another 'power' denied the government under the First Amendment: Such constitutes direct interference with the free exercise of religion - a concrete example of the factual meaning of the 'wall of separation between Church and State' so beloved of, and perverted by, those of statist persuasion.

The final sentence of your first paragraph encapsulates the tenuosity of the argument: Insofar as the intent was to establish a government of law, not of men, the option to pick and choose those transactions - contractual, fiduciary, or religious - in which such government interferes is an egregious arrogation of the liberties recognized with the ratification of the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights.

Further, the blanket definition of 'legal age' is a misnomer and further violation of the limitations on the power of the government: One is of 'legal age' to enter into a contract with the armed forces by specific statute, yet not of 'legal age' to enter into a simple contract with the purveyor of alcoholic beverages. Such arbitrary and illogical 'legal age' varies should that 'contract' be for tobacco, rather than alcohol; it further varies with the operation of a motor vehicle on 'federal' highways as opposed to 'neighborhood' streets or agricultural property. Any statute defined more by exception than application is a practical absurdity. Further, there is again the abomination of the government interfering with the free exercise of religion, in that according to the Jewish religion, a boy 'legally' becomes a man upon reaching the age of thirteen, considered 'capable' of entering into contracts, owning a commercial enterprise, or committing matrimony.

Further examples abound, but the question itself obfuscates the reality: Rather than pontificate over what 'the government' may or may not exercise power over, we would be better served - and meet with more success and greater agreement - were the question rephrased to ask "what powers are granted or denied a Constitutional government?" - and refuse to obey any legislation rendered null and void by its lack of fealty to the Constitution.

[DaveIn3D]

I wasn't wanting to turn this into a discussion on homosexual marriage, but apparantly it cannot be avioded.

Dave, a question if I may, but exactly what "civil rights" are being denied to a homosexual couple that don't pertain to a heterosexual couple that isn't married?


It is not really about civil rights. First off I really do belive that the gays are just pissed because they were denied the right to piss off the christians.

BUt the 'rights' they are fighting for are mostly for the workplace. Some businesses will give married couples time off for a baby. Some allow you to take paid leave to stay with a sick or injured mate. If you are not married, you are on your own if anything happens. Once a state recognizes the right of gays to marry, or recognizes 'civil unons' as having the same effect, businesses cannot hold back benefits or they risk a suit.

This has major implications for a lot of us. Once the ballot gets approved in more than just a 'few' states, and it will...eventually, it will probably become a national issue to be debated in the supreme court. This will lead to, If Obama doesnt do it first, gays serving openly in the military.

When my wife has our baby in May, the Corps is going to give me 10 days of free paternity leave. If I was in a hidden gay relationship and my partner delivered, I would be denied that free leave. I wouldnt be able to claim the baby as mine and get the benefits the rest of the military gets for their dependants. I would be on my own. Once the gays can legally marry and serve openly, 2 seperate issues, they will be open to a whole lot of military and government benefits originally denied them.

But luckily for me, I love the womenz and they love 3D. So this is not an issue for me.

-3D

[DaveIn3D]

So you would hold the view that, like race, sexual orientation is something that one is born with? Would you agree with the statement that a gay man cannot choose to be gay but rather is born that way?

I do believe that gay people are born that way. My cousin never liked hanging out with girls growing up. She only wanted to do the guy stuff. We thought she just really liked guys. Turns out she liked girls more but didnt like the girly stuff. As it turns out, she is the 'man' in her relationships.

Mating with the opposite sex in completely natural and even if no one taught you anything about sex, you would naturally figure it out at some point. Just like the women who say they do not want kids start beggin for one when they get close to thirty, some things just come naturally. That is why I think they are born with the 'gayness.' It takes a lot of willpower to over-ride you natural instincts. But there are lots, like my lesbo cousin, who have no second thoughts about it at all. She always has and always will be a homo.

That is not to say that there arent people out there who decided to be gay. Sometimes the environment plays a part. Just ask any catholic priest now or any Pope from the dark ages. Little boys are mighty enticing if you are denied womenz.

But like I said previously...The womenz like 3D and 3D likes the womenz.

3D

[03_SHOOTER]

Given the years of debate, I find myself somewhat surprised that you, or all people, would suggest I may not "...be familiar enough with [my] opponents position..."

An unfortunate choice of words on my part, and it was most assuredly NOT directed toward you, but for those members who may not be familiar with the exacting mental exercise required in order to formulate a proper argument. For my lack of clarity in communication, and for any perceived insult, I humbly beg your forgiveness. :o

Unless the Constitution has been amended to specifically enumerate such 'right', it is neither within the purview of the government to 'regulate' contracts between private parties nor to recognize the 'personhood' of a commercial entity as party to such contracts, except insofar as in cases of legal action for breach of such contract by one commercial entity the joint and several owners be considered culpable en masse. Given that 'contract law' is separate and distinct from Constitutional law, and adjudicated in a separate and distinct class of court, the questions are mutually exclusive.

But are they truly exclusive. If contract law is not supportable under the Constitution, from whence is it's legal authority derived? As the Constitution is the basis for all legal authority in America, without Constitutional basis, contracts would not be able to be argued or defended in American courts.

Further, the presumption that the government has some 'right', other than on its own presumption, "...to regulate that a 30-something man may not marry a 12 year old girl..." is a classic example of 'assuming facts not in evidence' - indeed, it presupposes yet another 'power' denied the government under the First Amendment: Such constitutes direct interference with the free exercise of religion - a concrete example of the factual meaning of the 'wall of separation between Church and State' so beloved of, and perverted by, those of statist persuasion.

Again, playing Devils Advocate, if the FF's did in fact adopt (with minor modification) Lord Blackstones law as the basis for our own, and Lord Blackstone clearly elucidated minimum age requirements for marriage, is it not consistent to state that our government also has the Right to set age requirements for marriage, or for that matter, for entering into any other contract, with or without parental consent? As far as the "freedom of religion" argument, I refer to Thomas Jefferson's wisdom on that very point;

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776.

The final sentence of your first paragraph encapsulates the tenuosity of the argument: Insofar as the intent was to establish a government of law, not of men, the option to pick and choose those transactions - contractual, fiduciary, or religious - in which such government interferes is an egregious arrogation of the liberties recognized with the ratification of the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights.

Further, the blanket definition of 'legal age' is a misnomer and further violation of the limitations on the power of the government: One is of 'legal age' to enter into a contract with the armed forces by specific statute, yet not of 'legal age' to enter into a simple contract with the purveyor of alcoholic beverages. Such arbitrary and illogical 'legal age' varies should that 'contract' be for tobacco, rather than alcohol; it further varies with the operation of a motor vehicle on 'federal' highways as opposed to 'neighborhood' streets or agricultural property. Any statute defined more by exception than application is a practical absurdity. Further, there is again the abomination of the government interfering with the free exercise of religion, in that according to the Jewish religion, a boy 'legally' becomes a man upon reaching the age of thirteen, considered 'capable' of entering into contracts, owning a commercial enterprise, or committing matrimony.

And once again I refer to Lord Blackstone as prima facie evidence of the right of the government to impose a 'legal age" for it's citizens to engage in certain activities. In Blackstones "Commentaries on the Laws of England", which was adopted virtually in toto by the FF's as the basis for our laws, he clearly states that; "A male at twelve years old may take the oath of allegiance ; at fourteen is at years old may take the oath of allegiance ; at fourteen is at years of difcretion, and therefore may confent or difagree to marriage, may choofe his guardian, and, if his difcretion be actually proved, may make his teftament of his perfonal eftate ; at feventeen may be an executor ; and at twenty one is at his own difpofal, and may aliene his lands, goods, and chattels. A female alfo at feven years of age may be betrothed or given in marriage ; at nine is entitled to dower ; at twelve is at yeas of maturity, and therefore may confent or difagree to marriage, and, if proved to have fufficient difcretion, may bequeath her perfonal eftate ; at fourteen is at years of legal difcretion, and may choofe a guardian ; at feventeen may be executrix ; and at twenty one may difpofe of herfelf and her lands. So that full age in male or female, is twenty one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniverfary of a perfon's birth q; who till that time is an infant, and fo ftiled in law."

Given that we are, as you state, a "nation of laws", the law as it existed at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and clearly known, understood, and accepted by the founding fathers clearly provides the precedent for the government possessing the fiduciary right and responsibility of establishing the "legal age" of consent in America regardless of any objections to that law until such time as it has been modified or abandoned by Congress.

Further examples abound, but the question itself obfuscates the reality: Rather than pontificate over what 'the government' may or may not exercise power over, we would be better served - and meet with more success and greater agreement - were the question rephrased to ask "what powers are granted or denied a Constitutional government?" - and refuse to obey any legislation rendered null and void by its lack of fealty to the Constitution.

And no other possible interpretation is possible, but is it not in fact true that the Constitution does not, in Article III, specify the makeup of the Courts, or what laws would be in force in America, and thereby that responsibility was left to the Congress in Article 1 of the Constitution, and that by adopting, virtually wholesale, "Blackstones Law" as it was the "common law" in America at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that Congress did in fact adopt Blackstone in toto et pars continetur that part that provides the fiduciary right and responsibility to establish, and as necessary modify, the "legal age" at which someone may engage in a specific activity.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Just ask any catholic priest now or any Pope from the dark ages. Little boys are mighty enticing if you are denied womenz.

That's pretty disrespectful and ignorant, especially seeing as how you're talking to a seminarian for the Catholic Church. You could ask me and I'd tell you that classifying any group of people with a stereotype is a very dangerous move. And no, I don't like little boys.

[HairyEyeball]

No, Tim, he's 'talking' to the entire forum.

Unpalatable though you may find it (and as crudely as it may have been overstated by someone who could use a session with a spell-checker), the facts - such as the fact that this is precisely what bankrupted the Tucson Diocese - are irrefutable. If it offends you, suck it up and do everything you're capable of to change the 'stereotype'.

[SlightlyCatholic]

It's extremely disrespectful to slander an entire faith's clergy, especially when a prospective member of that clergy is a part of the discussion. I would just appreciate a little more religious sensitivity here, that's all. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[DaveIn3D]

It's extremely disrespectful to slander an entire faith's clergy, especially when a prospective member of that clergy is a part of the discussion. I would just appreciate a little more religious sensitivity here, that's all. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Hairy, tell a joke about the Holocaust to an Orthodox Jew and see how well they "suck it up". It's the same thing.

Tim, if Catholic priests didnt molest little boys, this would not be an issue. I gave you an example of the environment creating a homo instead of birth. If you are going to run away and scream 'religious sensitivity' everytime you get offended, you are in the wrong place. If you can 'suck it up' and accept the faults of 'your' choice of religion while having an intelligent discussion with someone whose views do not match your own, then you are in the right place.

I have never been one to be nice about anything. If you can find fault with what I say, then say it. I will publicly apologize if the catholic priests accused of such crimes were all setup and the vatican did not have papal orgies involving little boys and 'Mao' aged girls in the dark ages. But do not play the 'religious sensitivity' card again because I could care less.

-3D

[SlightlyCatholic]

I have no problem with you citing the sex abuse scandals as a legitimate historical event. They happened, and it would be wrong of me to attempt to cover them up. That's how things got so bad in the first place.

With that said, I took your post to mean that every priest is enticed by little boys because they're celibate. If that's not what you meant, then clarify your position. If it is what you meant, then I would appreciate it if you kept that view to yourself.

If you've never been nice about anything, that's fine by me...just don't offend me by grossly stereotyping members of the Catholic clergy as paedophiles. That's all I ask.

[03_SHOOTER]

Tim, if Catholic priests didnt molest little boys, this would not be an issue. I gave you an example of the environment creating a homo instead of birth. If you are going to run away and scream 'religious sensitivity' everytime you get offended, you are in the wrong place. If you can 'suck it up' and accept the faults of 'your' choice of religion while having an intelligent discussion with someone whose views do not match your own, then you are in the right place.

I have never been one to be nice about anything. If you can find fault with what I say, then say it. I will publicly apologize if the catholic priests accused of such crimes were all setup and the vatican did not have papal orgies involving little boys and 'Mao' aged girls in the dark ages. But do not play the 'religious sensitivity' card again because I could care less.

-3D

Dave, one point of order if I may. Nobody disputes the fact that "some" priests have in fact engaged in activities that are not in keeping with the tenets of the faith, however, painting ALL priests with that brush is just as disingenuous as the libtards that have been running around accusing ALL Soldiers of "torture" because of the incident at Abu Grabass, or John Murtha painting ALL Marines as murderers, and even refusing to apologize, after they've been cleared of ALL charges.

Perhaps in the future if you were to use the modifier "some", or "a small handful", or something similar, your statements would not only be far more accurate, they'd also be far better received.

[DaveIn3D]

Dave, one point of order if I may. Nobody disputes the fact that "some" priests have in fact engaged in activities that are not in keeping with the tenets of the faith, however, painting ALL priests with that brush is just as disingenuous as the libtards that have been running around accusing ALL Soldiers of "torture" because of the incident at Abu Grabass, or John Murtha painting ALL Marines as murderers, and even refusing to apologize, after they've been cleared of ALL charges.

Perhaps in the future if you were to use the modifier "some", or "a small handful", or something similar, your statements would not only be far more accurate, they'd also be far better received.

I sort of modified the statement by saying ' catholic priests accused of such crimes..' I am sure I could have done more but the thought didnt occur to me until after the post.

And I did say I would apologize if those accused were ultimately setup and exonerated. But I will heed your advice in the future and make my statements more precise.

With that said, I took your post to mean that every priest is enticed by little boys because they're celibate. If that's not what you meant, then clarify your position. If it is what you meant, then I would appreciate it if you kept that view to yourself.

In retrospect I shouldn't have said 'any catholic priest now.' But I did make a valid point about how the environment turns someone gay. I am sure these men were not attracted to little boys prior to the priesthood and 40 years of no play. The vow they took was their downfall.

-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

I sort of modified the statement by saying ' catholic priests accused of such crimes..' I am sure I could have done more but the thought didnt occur to me until after the post.

And I did say I would apologize if those accused were ultimately setup and exonerated. But I will heed your advice in the future and make my statements more precise.

Thanks Dave.

In retrospect I shouldn't have said 'any catholic priest now.' But I did make a valid point about how the environment turns someone gay. I am sure these men were not attracted to little boys prior to the priesthood and 40 years of no play. The vow they took was their downfall.

-3D

OK, now let's analyze this and see what we can come up with. If it is your contention that "environment turns someone gay", then is it not reasonable to infer that being homosexual is a choice? But if it IS a choice, then it is not the "environment", but their failure to choose to leave the environment rather than violate the tenets of the faith, that is in fact the problem?

Further, if it is your contention that their vow of celibacy was their "downfall", does not the fact that the vast majority of Priests throughout history have not succumbed to such temptations, actually infer that what we are in reality dealing with is a personal weakness, that in actuality has nothing to do with the priesthood, but rather their own failure to leave the priesthood instead of victimizing young people?

On last point if I may, isn't the fact that there have been, throughout time, child predators who are not Priests, who had not taken any such vows, and who didn't live in that "environment", and yet who have in fact preyed on young people in itself evidence of the weakness of your argument? In fact, is it not true that the vast majority of child predators throughout time have in fact had no connection to the Catholic Church sufficient to render your entire argument fallacious, and highly prejudicial on it's face?

[SlightlyCatholic]

In retrospect I shouldn't have said 'any catholic priest now.' But I did make a valid point about how the environment turns someone gay. I am sure these men were not attracted to little boys prior to the priesthood and 40 years of no play. The vow they took was their downfall.

I've lived in a seminary for over a year and I haven't turned gay. My former pastor had 52 years of priesthood under his belt before retirement (not including seminary studies) and he never turned gay or ever tried to get with little boys. Priests fall for two reasons: a) improper formation (somebody didn't see the writing on the wall before ordination) or b) personal weakness (which, again, normally shows itself long before the man is ordained unless the incident in question is a one-time event). The "environment", when properly monitored by seminary formators and properly utilized by the seminarian, produces holy and celibate priests. It might be better to say that a seminary that is negligent in finding psychological indicators of future illicit behavior would cause the exacerbation of already present homosexual tendencies and possible instances of paedophelia. However, such cases of substandard formation in a seminary are quite rare in 2008 and to state simply that "the environment turns someone gay" is yet another broad stroke with a wide brush.

[DaveIn3D]

Thanks Dave.



OK, now let's analyze this and see what we can come up with. If it is your contention that "environment turns someone gay", then is it not reasonable to infer that being homosexual is a choice? But if it IS a choice, then it is not the "environment", but their failure to choose to leave the environment rather than violate the tenets of the faith, that is in fact the problem?

Further, if it is your contention that their vow of celibacy was their "downfall", does not the fact that the vast majority of Priests throughout history have not succumbed to such temptations, actually infer that what we are in reality dealing with is a personal weakness, that in actuality has nothing to do with the priesthood, but rather their own failure to leave the priesthood instead of victimizing young people?

On last point if I may, isn't the fact that there have been, throughout time, child predators who are not Priests, who had not taken any such vows, and who didn't live in that "environment", and yet who have in fact preyed on young people in itself evidence of the weakness of your argument? In fact, is it not true that the vast majority of child predators throughout time have in fact had no connection to the Catholic Church sufficient to render your entire argument fallacious, and highly prejudicial on it's face?

Actually my earlier contention was that people are born gay, i cited my cousin as a good example of that thinking. I will however acknowledge that there are ways in which the environment may turn someone gay. My example cited for that was the Catholic Priest scandals of recent years.

I cant say I know the mind of every Priest who thought a little boy would be a tasty treat. I can say that the problem was widespread enough to classify it as a problem and not just an occurrence. Generations worth of people are coming out of the woodwork to tell of abuse and just like not every priest is guilty, not every one of the 'abused' was lying either. This is a problem that has gone on for a very long time and effected a good amount of people. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a survey in 2004 that showed up to 4% of catholic priests in America had been accused of some sort of sexual crime. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html

But that argument is for another post.

For all the accused Priest to have slipped through the cracks shows a monumental failure in the selection process of the Catholic church. They might be doing background checks now to root out "deep-seeded' homosexuality within prosepective priests but how do they really look for the hidden homo? I am sure weakness plays a part of it but at some point all these men broke and I am pretty sure that the Catholic church in America would have known if up to 4% of its Priests were gay. So I am saying once again, that yes, the environment had a part in turning out the homo.

Question for another post maybe? Is there a difference between paedophelia and homosexuality? Is there something about children that makes men do stuff they wouldnt dare try with another grown man? Is it true homosexuality or something else?

-3D

[CAPSmith]

Last discussion I had with a homosexual woman, "For some reason people think that my homosexuality is a choice. Why the hell would I choose this?"

[SlightlyCatholic]

For all the accused Priest to have slipped through the cracks shows a monumental failure in the selection process of the Catholic church. They might be doing background checks now to root out "deep-seeded' homosexuality within prosepective priests but how do they really look for the hidden homo? I am sure weakness plays a part of it but at some point all these men broke and I am pretty sure that the Catholic church in America would have known if up to 4% of its Priests were gay. So I am saying once again, that yes, the environment had a part in turning out the homo.

First of all, a few distinctions need to be made. The clinical term "paedophelia" refers to an individual liking toddler-aged children. Not all of the abuse cases were of this nature. Also, the sex abuse scandals and homosexuality are not necessarily linked. We have to be careful. If you want to talk about specific instances of abuse involving homosexual priests and toddler-aged boys, the occurence is much smaller than "up to 4%".

The Catholic Church could have done a better job to spot problems before they ordained these men, but it's also important to realize that this is a two way street. It's the job of the seminary to recognize psychological red flags but it's also up to the man to realize when something's not right or when he (or something he's feeling or doing) isn't compatible with the life of an "alter Christus" (another Christ). The Church doesn't always know what another man is going to do once he's ordained, either. The staff of a seminary does its best to form men but it can't read minds. Do we blame violations of the UCMJ on a soldier's or an airman's basic training command? Do we go to the Commanding General of Parris Island if a Marine does something gravely wrong at his first duty station? No, we go after the servicemember. The priest represents the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean that the Church didn't do everything in her power to prevent a priest from breaking his vows should an incident occur. Priests, like every other man, are still human after ordination and that brings with it certain risks that unfortunately became problematic for some priests.

So again, I am saying that while the environment may have played a part in the downfall of the man as a priest, I would argue that free will is just as much of (if not more of) a factor. I don't think we can place the blame completely on the establishment when many of these cases were simply bad choices or already engrained tendencies of individual men.

[03_SHOOTER]

For all the accused Priest to have slipped through the cracks shows a monumental failure in the selection process of the Catholic church. They might be doing background checks now to root out "deep-seeded' homosexuality within prosepective priests but how do they really look for the hidden homo? I am sure weakness plays a part of it but at some point all these men broke and I am pretty sure that the Catholic church in America would have known if up to 4% of its Priests were gay. So I am saying once again, that yes, the environment had a part in turning out the homo.

-3D

Think about this; is it not more likely that the fact that up to 4% of Priests are homosexual, when demographics show that only 1.5% of the US population identifies themselves as homosexual, that it is a far more likely scenario that they were homosexual to begin with, and chose the Priesthood for other than "proper foundational" reasons, than the Priesthood causing their homosexuality? Does not your own earlier premise that homosexuality is "natural" in these people also serve to dispute your assertion that the Priesthood "caused' the very small number of offenders to do what they have done?

One thing that we all need to bear in mind is to avoid making the logical error Cum hoc ergo propter hoc and remember that "correlation is not causality". Just because there are homosexuals in the Priesthood does not mean that the Priesthood caused the homosexuality.

[DaveIn3D]

The Catholic Church could have done a better job to spot problems before they ordained these men, but it's also important to realize that this is a two way street. It's the job of the seminary to recognize psychological red flags but it's also up to the man to realize when something's not right or when he (or something he's feeling or doing) isn't compatible with the life of an "alter Christus" (another Christ). The Church doesn't always know what another man is going to do once he's ordained, either. The staff of a seminary does its best to form men but it can't read minds. Do we blame violations of the UCMJ on a soldier's or an airman's basic training command? Do we go to the Commanding General of Parris Island if a Marine does something gravely wrong at his first duty station? No, we go after the servicemember. The priest represents the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean that the Church didn't do everything in her power to prevent a priest from breaking his vows should an incident occur. Priests, like every other man, are still human after ordination and that brings with it certain risks that unfortunately became problematic for some priests.


I would agree with you on most of that. You must remember that part of the scandal was that the church new what was going on in some cases and instead of kicking the priest out, they just moved him somewhere else. So you have homosexual priests and supposedly good priests covering for them. But that brings us into different waters that are not really at the base of this discussion.

03, I do belive that you can be born gay and also that the environment can bring out the 'hidden' homo. I guess that sort of kills my previous statement but I think it still somewhat applies. I believe there is some gay in all of us. It is just circumstances that either keep it within or bring it out. Most people dont even realize this and live their lives completely straight. Others, to bring up Rome, thought that porking the man-gina was perfectly natural and therefore thought nothing of it. The times and the culture brought the homo out in them. Just like now being around nubile young boys and a life devoted to not getting 'snatch' might have been a catalyst for bringing out the homo is some of the priests. To say that those priests were weak-willed and possibly homo to begin with might be true. To say that all the violating priests were homos before is a bit of a stretch. But who will know for sure? Like Tim said, there are plenty ( the large majority actually) of catholic priests who have never even thought of violating a boy. They could have been homos to start and just slipped through the cracks. But I will stand by my previous posts as my interpretation of that situation.


-3D

[CAPSmith]

Not to beat this to death, but being homosexual doesn't mean that your sexual "preference" is children. Being homosexual doesn't make you a child molester, nor does it pre-dispose you to be one either.

[DoubleHelix]

Others, to bring up Rome, thought that porking the man-gina was perfectly natural and therefore thought nothing of it. The times and the culture brought the homo out in them. Just like now being around nubile young boys and a life devoted to not getting 'snatch' might have been a catalyst for bringing out the homo is some of the priests. To say that those priests were weak-willed and possibly homo to begin with might be true. To say that all the violating priests were homos before is a bit of a stretch. But who will know for sure? Like Tim said, there are plenty ( the large majority actually) of catholic priests who have never even thought of violating a boy. They could have been homos to start and just slipped through the cracks. But I will stand by my previous posts as my interpretation of that situation.


-3D

If I'm correct, in Rome that was supposedly how you palled around with your best friends. Far be it from me to even see that as remotely fun, and there were probably a ton of bow-legged Romans walking around. I believe there might be a better environment to choose to show your point 3D (because I am on a similar page as you.) That would be prison. Bubba might have came in straight, but after serving 15 years without a female, and not looking forward to his next 85, that cell-mate of his might start looking mighty appealing.

[SlightlyCatholic]

If I'm correct, in Rome that was supposedly how you palled around with your best friends. Far be it from me to even see that as remotely fun, and there were probably a ton of bow-legged Romans walking around. I believe there might be a better environment to choose to show your point 3D (because I am on a similar page as you.) That would be prison. Bubba might have came in straight, but after serving 15 years without a female, and not looking forward to his next 85, that cell-mate of his might start looking mighty appealing.

I wouldn't compare a seminary with a prison, as every seminarian present willingly chooses to be there (and has a better chance of being kicked out instead of kept in for misconduct). Seminarians have a full understanding that they will need to be celibate while in a seminary and God willing as a priest. Inmates have a condition of celibate life placed upon them due to the circumstances of their incarceration as a result of a crime. The two are different environments and cannot be considered comparable simply because the two share the similar characteristic of an exclusively male population. If we were to suspect misconduct within every exclusively male population, we'd have to start investigating crews on submarines.

If I'm correct, in Rome that was supposedly how you palled around with your best friends.

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting that information from? What time period are you talking about?

[DoubleHelix]

I wasn't comparing the two, I understand the differences. I was stating that as far as an environment turning a man homosexual, that a prison would probably serve as a better example. And as far as the Rome comment, it was burned somewhere in the back of my mind, give me a little bit to actually look something up supporting it, and if I cant find it, I'll withdraw the comment.

EDIT: You know, I do believe that was a comment I heard from a teacher a while back. As such, since I can't find the supporting info, I do withdraw that statement. As simply as I can put it, my bad.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I wasn't comparing the two, I understand the differences. I was stating that as far as an environment turning a man homosexual, that a prison would probably serve as a better example. And as far as the Rome comment, it was burned somewhere in the back of my mind, give me a little bit to actually look something up supporting it, and if I cant find it, I'll withdraw the comment.

EDIT: You know, I do believe that was a comment I heard from a teacher a while back. As such, since I can't find the supporting info, I do withdraw that statement. As simply as I can put it, my bad.

No problem about the comment...I had just never heard it put that way and I was wondering where you had gotten that information from.

Having BTDT in a seminary environment, I can tell you that every man has to go through a stringent and exhausting battery of examinations (medical, psychological, criminal, etc.) to address the very things we're talking about. I can also tell you that no man that goes through that is doing so because they don't want to be a seminarian. With that said, men are free to leave at any time and are encouraged to do so if they feel they aren't called to be a priest. A misconception that occurs frequently is that the man who leaves seminary has failed his friends and family. On the contrary, it is much better to have the maturity to leave than to hold onto something that probably shouldn't be anymore.

What's my point? I don't want anyone here getting the impression that men in seminary (or priests for that matter) are chained to their vows. It doesn't work like that.

EDIT: For those who aren't familiar with the difference between vows and promises, a diocesan priest (confined to operating in a diocese) takes two promises of celibacy and obedience and a religious priest (one who belongs to a religious order) takes vows of celibate chastity, obedience, and poverty. The difference between promises and vows is this: a promise is to be followed so long as the obligatory nature of the promise remains (for example, priests would no longer need to be celibate if the Vatican were to allow priests to marry) and a vow has to be followed regardless of decrees relative to the vow itself. The possibility of Latin Rite diocesan priests being able to marry, however, has a very small chance of coming to fruition. Furthermore, only Latin Rite priests are forbidden to marry. Eastern Rite priests (which encompasses such churches as the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church), on the other hand, are allowed to marry. Both churches are in full communion with the Vatican but have small differences in ceremonial rites and priestly regulations, such as the one aforementioned. Just some background information...

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but would it be a problem to get back on the topic of marriage and the constitutional nature of legalized marriage? This is turning into a "Catholic thread", which is probably not what the original poster intended. Just a suggestion...

[C/Msgt.wraith]

With all points considered, no person, group of persons, or government should infringe on the right's of a person to choose which sex they want to marry. I am not talking about gay rights either, I am talking about the right to make a personal decision that affects your own life. No one should be able to take that away, and for the people who say that its against there beliefs... Well, that may not be everyone Else's beliefs.