If you think that I am some type of Bible thumping zealot, you are
very
much mistaken.
---
did I imply that you are?
I find it somewhat humorous, but mostly disturbing that folks like you
get
your drawers all up in a wad over Christians,
---
accusation noted and completely false
and that we are pretty much
the majority in this Nation. We don't make a big fuss about much; we
don't have a lot of demands.....The far left mock us; the secularists
like
yourself want to see us wiped from the history books; and yet, we
continue
to "Continue On", keeping a low profile, and having, "Faith".
---
you are more than welcome to keep your faith
I have no objections to, or any problems with homosexuals, and
whatever it
is that they do.
---
so, you don't believe that homosexuality is sinful like most other
christians, jews, and muzzies?
It might be a wonderful thing for all I know, and their
lifestyle(s) might truly be "Da Big Big Party"; again, I don't
know. I
do know that when ANY group or organization starts clamoring for more
rights and privileges than you or I have, because of their behavior;
just
like when I smell horse hockey, I usually say as much.
---
they want the same rights ... not more rights
On Jun 20, 10:19 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plain Ol,
>
> If you think that I am some type of Bible thumping zealot, you are very
> much mistaken. I am a Christian, and have not a problem admitting to
> that, or being ashamed of my, "Faith", (and I emphasize that "Faith" is
> the operative word there). I'm not, "Fishing For Men"; I'm not out on the
> street corner handing out leaflets, nor do I go to folks houses on Saturday
> mornings trying to get them to hear, "The Word".
>
> I find it somewhat humorous, but mostly disturbing that folks like you get
> your drawers all up in a wad over Christians, and that we are pretty much
> the majority in this Nation. We don't make a big fuss about much; we
> don't have a lot of demands.....The far left mock us; the secularists like
> yourself want to see us wiped from the history books; and yet, we continue
> to "Continue On", keeping a low profile, and having, "Faith".
>
> I have no objections to, or any problems with homosexuals, and whatever it
> is that they do. It might be a wonderful thing for all I know, and their
> lifestyle(s) might truly be "Da Big Big Party"; again, I don't know. I
> do know that when ANY group or organization starts clamoring for more
> rights and privileges than you or I have, because of their behavior; just
> like when I smell horse hockey, I usually say as much.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's just a matter of time before the lid blows off of this whole
> > fraud.
> > ---
> > you're right ... the religious in the military need to be muzzled like
> > rabid dogs.
>
> > the military is going to say enough
> > ---
> > and American will tell them to stfu or get out.
>
> > DADT is the best that the religious in the military can hope for.
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:50 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's just a matter of time before the lid blows off of this whole
> > > fraud. The first Gay Pride parade, where folks are parading around with
> > > their uniforms all "gussied" up, and/or there will be some "Gay Drama"
> > > from the likes of someone like Lil'TommyTomTomForNews, shit will
> > literally
> > > hit the fan, and the military is going to say enough.
>
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:20 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > only DADT stopped the enforcement of these policies.
> > > > ---
> > > > as it should
>
> > > > The tide
> > > > will soon turn and the complaints will start.
> > > > ----
> > > > warmongers are hardly concerned about gay rights
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 2:11 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Actually, Plainol... all the draconian laws that persecuted and
> > > > > prosecuted Gays before DADT was put in place are now back on the
> > > > > books... only DADT stopped the enforcement of these policies. The
> > tide
> > > > > will soon turn and the complaints will start.
>
> > > > > On Jun 19, 9:05 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > the US military, unlike the religious, does not persecute
> > homosexuals.
>
> > > > > > the grip that xians once had on America is gone ... free at last!
>
> > > > > > On Jun 19, 10:02 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Will they be celebrating "Ramitdown" next?
>
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > New post on *ACGR's "News with Attitude"*
> > > > > > > <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/> The Many, The
> > Gay,
> > > > The New
> > > > > > > Marines to Celebrate Gay Pride
> > > > > > > Month<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/05-972/>by
> > > > > > > Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>
>
> > > > > > > da Tagliare, Godfather Politics 6/19/2012 Source ..... For years,
> > > > I've
> > > > > > > heard the ads for the US Marine Corps that said, 'The Few, the
> > > > Proud, the
> > > > > > > Marines.' During the same time, the US Army ran recruiting ads
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > slogan, 'To be the best you can be.' I recall when I spoke to
> > > > military
> > > > > > > recruiters years [...]
>
> > > > > > > Read more of this post <
> > > >http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/05-972/>
> > > > > > > *Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>* | June
> > 19,
> > > > 2012 at
> > > > > > > 7:41 am | Categories: Corruption <
> > > >http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=22388>,
> > > > > > > Executive <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=53796>,
> > > > > > > Government<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=2311>,
> > > > > > > Homosexuality <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=37093>,
> > > > > > > Legislative<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=217843>,
> > > > > > > Military <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=488>,
> > > > > > > NeoConservatives<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=152793>,
> > > > > > > Pentagon <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=31632>, Political
> > > > > > > Correctness<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=17919>,
> > > > > > > Politics <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=398>,
> > > > > > > Progressives<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=182563>,
> > > > > > > Propaganda <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=13722>,
> > > > > > > Sovereignty<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=69462>,
> > > > > > > States Rights <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=280753>, U.S.
> > > > > > > Constitution<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=51155>| URL:
> > > >http://wp.me/pmtmV-8b5
>
> > > > > > > Comment <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/05-972/#respond
>
> > > > See
> > > > > > > all comments <
> >http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/05-972/#comments
>
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> > > > > > > Subscriptions<
> > > >https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf..
> > .>.
>
> > > > > > > *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
> > > >http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/05-972/
> > > > > > > Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Re: The Secession Solution
Keith: My New Constitution will forever get government out of our
bedrooms! Marriages won't require licenses; they will be contracts.
The only thing WRONG with gay "marriage" is their taking away of the
colloquial heterosexual definition of the word. My New Constitution
coins the descriptive word "gayged" instead. When someone says they
are gayged, they will also be saying that they are homosexual.
Governments will want to control those things that they have
information on. My New Constitution won't be having any more
censuses, because knowing how many poor people there are will cause
laws to be made to correct that "problem" that governments have no
business being involved in! And there will be no taxes other than
impersonal sales taxes. So, no government will be keeping private
records on anyone. I also place limits on the records that law
enforcement can keep. Know this: When government has information on
every citizen, government will try to control every citizen! So, I
remove 95% of such records from all government files; and FREEDOM will
start being returned! — John A. Armistead —
On Jun 19, 4:35 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that government has no business in marriage.
>
> As Mark rightfully and correctly stated, any man can marry anyone that he
> so chooses, and any woman can marry anyone that she so chooses. Nothing
> has changed in North Carolina, with the exception of North Carolinians,
> like Floridians and something like 36 other states' citizenry,
> have unequivocally made clear that the definition of marriage will not be
> changed based upon one's sexual behavior.
>
> Plain Ol', you can try to spin it any way that you want, but the move by
> the militant Gay Agenda, which is a part of the secularist movement
> to revise American history, is not about discrimination. It's not
> about equal rights. This movement/agenda is about secularists such as
> yourself attempting to change the very morality of, and the fabric of our
> Nation. To change the definition of marriage, and the Western/Christian
> moral tenets that our Nation is based upon. Most Americans reject an
> attempt to redefine the term marriage.
>
> Just to prove my point that this has nothing to do with equal rights or
> discrimination: Assuming for a moment that a State
> acknowledges homosexuals' privilege of "joining" as a couple, and giving
> them the same status as heterosexual "married" couples was to affect a
> class of people, (which it doesn't; again we have established that there
> is no class of people, homosexuals are no different than you or I, and
> only can be distinguished by their admission of what they do sexually) then
> this has been accomplished in a number of States, to include California,
> New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and a host of other States. Civil
> Unions have been allowed in these States for a number of years. The
> militant Gay Agenda, as well as secularists such as yourself, have not
> been satisfied with "equal". Civil Unions were not good enough. No,
> there was no happy medium, but only the change of the term "marriage" was
> acceptable; the only purpose of which was to shove what many Americans
> believe to be an immoral lifestyle and unnatural acts down our proverbial
> throats.
>
> It's not going to happen, and I predict that this whole movement will come
> back to hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections.
> Those States who have approved and allowed for the redefinition of marriage
> will eventually change and strike these laws, as I think you will see the
> military reverse it's recent determination to allow openly Gay men and
> women in the service.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Plainol... Any man can marry any woman... It applies very equally to
> > gays.
>
> > On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > homosexuals are still guaranteed those same
> > > identical rights that you and I
> > > ---
> > > not true
> > > they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for starters
>
> > > On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to
> > maintain
> > > > the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those
> > same
> > > > identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than
> > North
> > > > Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than
> > I
> > > > have, or that you have, because of their behavior.
>
> > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > North Carolina did nothing that was
> > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
> > > > > against a
> > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and
> > > > > the blacks
>
> > > > > This was a
> > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts
> > > > > decisions
>
> > > > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Well said Mark.
>
> > > > > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers
> > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that
> > was
> > > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
> > against
> > > > > a
> > > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was a
> > > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
>
> > > > > > At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define
> > > > > marriage.
> > > > > > I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that have
> > been
> > > > > > brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right"
> > need to be
> > > > > > quashed and shut down on this issue.
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <
> > markmka...@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th
> > Amendment...
> > > > > > > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral
> > compass
> > > > > > > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the
> > > > > > > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them
> > > > > > > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well
> > > > > > > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic
> > > > > > > issue.
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012
> > > > > > > > byChris Bassil
> > > > > > > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North
> > Carolina
> > > > > > > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay
> > > > > marriage,
> > > > > > > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed
> > by
> > > > > voters.
> > > > > > > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content,
> > the
> > > > > former
> > > > > > > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but
> > much of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything
> > else.
> > > > > > > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that
> > this
> > > > > > > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but
> > rather
> > > > > that we
> > > > > > > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means
> > of
> > > > > > > collective decision making in the first place.
> > > > > > > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue
> > of gay
> > > > > > > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes
> > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of
> > > > > business,
> > > > > > > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for
> > collective
> > > > > > > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common
> > > > > denominator
> > > > > > > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's
> > > > > opinions,
> > > > > > > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory
> > > > > though
> > > > > > > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93
> > counties
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining
> > seven as
> > > > > > > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the
> > opportunity to
> > > > > lead
> > > > > > > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.
> > > > > > > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local
> > to the
> > > > > > > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure,
> > the
> > > > > > > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss
> > of
> > > > > freedom
> > > > > > > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been
> > cast has
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a
> > heterogeneous
> > > > > group
> > > > > > > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting
> > shows
> > > > > this to
> > > > > > > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were
> > entirely
> > > > > > > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our
> > identical
> > > > > beliefs,
> > > > > > > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact
> > same
> > > > > > > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own
> > existence,
> > > > > > > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also
> > > > > implies our
> > > > > > > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all
> > solutions
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with
> > different
> > > > > > > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need
> > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > vote.)
> > > > > > > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown,
> > however,
> > > > > > > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate
> > them
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome
> > of the
> > > > > > > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the
> > heterogeneous
> > > > > > > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the
> > largest
> > > > > > > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the
> > > > > smaller,
> > > > > > > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide.
> > > > > > > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek
> > noted
> > > > > > > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic
> > > > > process.
> > > > > > > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from
> > the fact
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > it is usually developed with some ideal
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
bedrooms! Marriages won't require licenses; they will be contracts.
The only thing WRONG with gay "marriage" is their taking away of the
colloquial heterosexual definition of the word. My New Constitution
coins the descriptive word "gayged" instead. When someone says they
are gayged, they will also be saying that they are homosexual.
Governments will want to control those things that they have
information on. My New Constitution won't be having any more
censuses, because knowing how many poor people there are will cause
laws to be made to correct that "problem" that governments have no
business being involved in! And there will be no taxes other than
impersonal sales taxes. So, no government will be keeping private
records on anyone. I also place limits on the records that law
enforcement can keep. Know this: When government has information on
every citizen, government will try to control every citizen! So, I
remove 95% of such records from all government files; and FREEDOM will
start being returned! — John A. Armistead —
On Jun 19, 4:35 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that government has no business in marriage.
>
> As Mark rightfully and correctly stated, any man can marry anyone that he
> so chooses, and any woman can marry anyone that she so chooses. Nothing
> has changed in North Carolina, with the exception of North Carolinians,
> like Floridians and something like 36 other states' citizenry,
> have unequivocally made clear that the definition of marriage will not be
> changed based upon one's sexual behavior.
>
> Plain Ol', you can try to spin it any way that you want, but the move by
> the militant Gay Agenda, which is a part of the secularist movement
> to revise American history, is not about discrimination. It's not
> about equal rights. This movement/agenda is about secularists such as
> yourself attempting to change the very morality of, and the fabric of our
> Nation. To change the definition of marriage, and the Western/Christian
> moral tenets that our Nation is based upon. Most Americans reject an
> attempt to redefine the term marriage.
>
> Just to prove my point that this has nothing to do with equal rights or
> discrimination: Assuming for a moment that a State
> acknowledges homosexuals' privilege of "joining" as a couple, and giving
> them the same status as heterosexual "married" couples was to affect a
> class of people, (which it doesn't; again we have established that there
> is no class of people, homosexuals are no different than you or I, and
> only can be distinguished by their admission of what they do sexually) then
> this has been accomplished in a number of States, to include California,
> New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and a host of other States. Civil
> Unions have been allowed in these States for a number of years. The
> militant Gay Agenda, as well as secularists such as yourself, have not
> been satisfied with "equal". Civil Unions were not good enough. No,
> there was no happy medium, but only the change of the term "marriage" was
> acceptable; the only purpose of which was to shove what many Americans
> believe to be an immoral lifestyle and unnatural acts down our proverbial
> throats.
>
> It's not going to happen, and I predict that this whole movement will come
> back to hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections.
> Those States who have approved and allowed for the redefinition of marriage
> will eventually change and strike these laws, as I think you will see the
> military reverse it's recent determination to allow openly Gay men and
> women in the service.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Plainol... Any man can marry any woman... It applies very equally to
> > gays.
>
> > On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > homosexuals are still guaranteed those same
> > > identical rights that you and I
> > > ---
> > > not true
> > > they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for starters
>
> > > On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to
> > maintain
> > > > the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those
> > same
> > > > identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than
> > North
> > > > Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than
> > I
> > > > have, or that you have, because of their behavior.
>
> > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > North Carolina did nothing that was
> > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
> > > > > against a
> > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and
> > > > > the blacks
>
> > > > > This was a
> > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts
> > > > > decisions
>
> > > > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Well said Mark.
>
> > > > > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers
> > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that
> > was
> > > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
> > against
> > > > > a
> > > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was a
> > > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
>
> > > > > > At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define
> > > > > marriage.
> > > > > > I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that have
> > been
> > > > > > brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right"
> > need to be
> > > > > > quashed and shut down on this issue.
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <
> > markmka...@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th
> > Amendment...
> > > > > > > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral
> > compass
> > > > > > > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the
> > > > > > > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them
> > > > > > > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well
> > > > > > > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic
> > > > > > > issue.
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012
> > > > > > > > byChris Bassil
> > > > > > > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North
> > Carolina
> > > > > > > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay
> > > > > marriage,
> > > > > > > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed
> > by
> > > > > voters.
> > > > > > > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content,
> > the
> > > > > former
> > > > > > > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but
> > much of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything
> > else.
> > > > > > > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that
> > this
> > > > > > > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but
> > rather
> > > > > that we
> > > > > > > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means
> > of
> > > > > > > collective decision making in the first place.
> > > > > > > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue
> > of gay
> > > > > > > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes
> > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of
> > > > > business,
> > > > > > > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for
> > collective
> > > > > > > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common
> > > > > denominator
> > > > > > > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's
> > > > > opinions,
> > > > > > > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory
> > > > > though
> > > > > > > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93
> > counties
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining
> > seven as
> > > > > > > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the
> > opportunity to
> > > > > lead
> > > > > > > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.
> > > > > > > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local
> > to the
> > > > > > > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure,
> > the
> > > > > > > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss
> > of
> > > > > freedom
> > > > > > > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been
> > cast has
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a
> > heterogeneous
> > > > > group
> > > > > > > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting
> > shows
> > > > > this to
> > > > > > > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were
> > entirely
> > > > > > > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our
> > identical
> > > > > beliefs,
> > > > > > > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact
> > same
> > > > > > > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own
> > existence,
> > > > > > > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also
> > > > > implies our
> > > > > > > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all
> > solutions
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with
> > different
> > > > > > > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need
> > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > vote.)
> > > > > > > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown,
> > however,
> > > > > > > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate
> > them
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome
> > of the
> > > > > > > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the
> > heterogeneous
> > > > > > > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the
> > largest
> > > > > > > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the
> > > > > smaller,
> > > > > > > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide.
> > > > > > > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek
> > noted
> > > > > > > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic
> > > > > process.
> > > > > > > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from
> > the fact
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > it is usually developed with some ideal
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Suds for dogs!
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
‘Constitution-free zones’ and the government’s favorite drug cartel
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: You've scheduled: Bruce Majors for Congress fundraiser
If I were still living in DC you would have my vote.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Meetup
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Subject: You've scheduled: Bruce Majors for Congress fundraiser
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com
Add info@meetup.com to your address book to receive all Meetup emails
To unsubscribe from similar emails from this Meetup Group, click here
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668
Meetup HQ in NYC is hiring! http://www.meetup.com/jobs/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)