TexasCHLforum.com

talltex wrote:
Anygunanywhere wrote:Precisely. We do not achieve greatness emphasizing our differences. We achieve greatness emphasizing what we have in common, and that used to be freedom and free exercise of our God given rights.
Anygunanywhere
I agree with this...my grandparents immigrated from Germany before WWI broke out and my grandfather always said the greatest day of his life was when he became a U.S. Citizen. There is a HUGE difference between those earlier European immigrants and today...they strove to become AMERICANS and assimilate into the AMERICAN culture, norms and social mores as quickly as they could. Today it's almost the exact opposite...each group wants to maintain the ethnic roots and language and social customs of their native country and makes little effort to adapt to the existing culture and language. The U.S. used to be called the "great melting pot"...now the ingredients are not being stirred.

And this is one reason America has seen its best days and why it will be forever on the decline as a country, a society, and as a world leader.

Chas.

VMI77 wrote:
JALLEN wrote: Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.
And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

And the goal of the left is not merely multiculturalism, but multiculturalism while destroying Christianity. Christians are demonized, while all other religions are presented as peace-loving people. What a load of crap!

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.
If you only need to be recognized by a religion then, at least two major US religions affirm gay marriage.
Another one has no problem with polygamous marriage, and its membership is what, one billion people now.

If religion is your argument thats fine, but be careful what you wish for.
Reread what I posted. I never said the institution of marriage exists solely because it meets two elements of 1) being recognized in a religious sense; and 2) is also recognized as legal status. I said it is has both religious status and legal status, neither of which depends upon recognition by the other.

Chas.

Then neither is sufficient support.
If the government is going to be involved then it has to meet the fundamental tenants of the Constitution inclusive of the Bill of Rights and all Amendments.
What religion says about it is utterly irrelevant.

I am going to bow out of this discussion as its tangential to CHL and I don't want to get in trouble for my opinions.

If you want on read and post only in threads directly related to CHL, then do so.

The "fundamental tenants of the Constitution . . ." is a grandiose but meaningless phrase. Show me where the Constitution denies citizens, through their elected officials, the right to define the legal status (not religious, that's for the church) of marriage. It doesn't exist. As Baldeagle pointed out, the danger in the Supreme Court's action yesterday lies not specifically with the so-called "gay marriage" issue, but with the extreme expansion of usurped authority in which it engaged.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated. I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

No, they were fleeing King George and they wanted free land and to get rich.

cb1000rider wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: Homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected class, so your attempt to harken back to racial issues fails.
There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted. I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

There still aren't. Protected classes are unconstitutionally created by federal statutes. Every single protected class in existence today was created by bill that passed Congress (age, race, religion, etc.). No such statute exists for homosexuals, thus there's no basis for the Supreme Court's decision.

cb1000rider wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm an attorney and I know precisely what all citizens rights are in terms of currently available partnerships. Taxation is different in terms of the different marriage deduction for federal income tax purposes, but apparently you forgot about the so-called "marriage penalty" that actually penalized married couples.
No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples.

I never said that "they" had the same rights as married couples, nor should they. Heterosexuals who are unmarried do not have the same rights as married couples, at least in the context in which you reference "rights." I pointed out that they can accomplish almost the same goals by the use of contracts, as can heterosexuals.

cb1000rider wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't make "my morality," and this is precisely the problem. When liberals and those supporting them argue that there is no "truth," no "right," and that each person should establish their own morality, then society is doomed. There is one morality, like it or not, accept it or not.
We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.
To me, this isn't an issue about a moral right.. I don't argue morality here. I argue equality. If I felt that there was civil equality and legal equality, then things would be different on my end.

No we don't, we don't have that right, authority or ability. Some CLAIM to create their own morality as an excuse for doing that which is unacceptable to society. Unfortunately, an ever increasing segment of American society buys your argument that everyone should be able to "do what is right in their own eyes." That's why this country isn't a shadow of what it once was only a few decades ago and why it will likely not survive many more.

cb1000rider wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: I also could not disagree with you more on the issue of what our servicemen fought and died for in so many wars.
Chas.
I think they fought and died so we can have civil disagreements. So we can live in a country that is diversive in terms of belief system. So we can live in a country where the majority class doesn't try and exterminate a minority class, just because they judge themselves to be morally (or genetically) superior... And yea, I'm being dramatic, but in the past this country has a history of discriminating with great prejudice against unprotected minority citizens.

Too bad there isn't a way to ask veterans and active servicemen if their service was/is so each person back home can do whatever is right in their own eyes and thumb their noses at morals that society has accepted until recently. I think you would be disappointed.

Chas.

2firfun50 wrote:Hey folks, since this is a CHL Forum and this is a politcal thread, can we get back to CHL stuff? Our Governor has called another special session to start Monday and left all gun is issues off the call again.

The death of HB508 affects all of us a whole lot more than what the SCOTUS did today. Lets see what we can do regarding the "will of the people".

The Forum has long since grown beyond merely CHL issues and discussions.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.
If you only need to be recognized by a religion then, at least two major US religions affirm gay marriage.
Another one has no problem with polygamous marriage, and its membership is what, one billion people now.

If religion is your argument thats fine, but be careful what you wish for.

Reread what I posted. I never said the institution of marriage exists solely because it meets two elements of 1) being recognized in a religious sense; and 2) is also recognized as legal status. I said it is has both religious status and legal status, neither of which depends upon recognition by the other.

Chas.

JALLEN wrote:
baldeagle wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.
Our country was founded by people fleeing a government that wouldn't allow them to freely practice their religion.

cb1000rider wrote:Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated.
People don't grant rights to other people. People inherently have rights. To one degree or another, the governments under which they live either protect or do not protect those rights.

cb1000rider wrote:I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.
Our Constitution does not articulate fundamental principles. It articulates a form of government designed to protect the rights that people inherently have.

cb1000rider wrote:There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted.
Really? Blacks didn't even have citizenship or protected rights.

cb1000rider wrote:I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.
Wrong. Fundamental rights never change. Things do not need protection. This is where so many people err. There is no right to privacy. The Supreme Court simply created one out of the "penumbra" of "emanations" being emitted by the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion. There is no right to marriage. The Supreme Court simply created these out of thin air. There is no right to adequate healthcare. There is no right to a decent education or a good job. These are not rights. They are privileges.

cb1000rider wrote:No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.
Medicare, survivorship benefits, estate taxes and gift benefits are not rights. They are artificial distinctions in the law that grant privileges to certain classes of people that are not granted to other classes of people.

Where does the right to equality in marriage exist in the Constitution? What logical argument can you articulate after this ruling that prohibits polygyny, polyandry or polygamy given that now the Supreme Court has created this new right of marriage? Why should a person who seeks to marry a horse be denied his or her rights? You may think this is ridiculous, but it's coming. And now there is nothing in law to reject it. "Equality" must rule the day.

The reason governments pass laws that favor a particular class are many and varied. They may think protecting a certain class benefits society. They may have evil intentions and want to harm society. But nowhere in the Constitution is any class granted special favors or denied special favors. The true purpose of government is to protect our unalienable rights and provide for the common defense. Nothing more. Nothing less. All else is piffle.

cb1000rider wrote:I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.
There is no inequality. People who associate together (for whatever reason) have the right to enter into contractual obligations at any time for any reason. I could make you my heir, if I chose to. We don't need to be married to do that. I can grant you medical power of attorney. Or complete power of attorney.

cb1000rider wrote:We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.
A breathtaking statement. Is the punishment for murder a black and white issue? It's a moral judgment. What about rape? Can you articulate why it's wrong to rape not based on any morality? We make moral judgments in law all the time. If we did not, then there would be no justification at all for criminal prohibitions.

Why is it wrong for me to shoot you for no reason but right for you to shoot me in self defense? What makes one action acceptable and the other not? Moral judgments. Black and white moral judgments.
Many values expressed in our "morals" are not universally shared in all cultures. Look at the many peculiar values we hear about in Islamic cultures.

A good part of the controversy stems from what I am more and more regarding as a serious problem, the idea that all the various cultures and religions and races are be melded together for good. "Out of many, one!" We do not share common values, common manners, common religion to any remarkable degree. In many countries, all speaking the same language, almost all of the same religious background, the social and cultural norms are more obvious, less variable, more enforceable. Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:Chas, you can't have both.

Both what?

cb1000rider wrote:Do you agree that one of our fundamental tenants as a country is that we separate religion from the running of government? Marriage is a religious idea, not a governmental concept... The government has it confused and because they're injecting a secular definition that requires equal acceptance to a religious concept, we've got a big conflict...

I disagree. Marriage is not purely a "religious status." Marriage has been a recognized legal status since the beginning of the country. Things such as legal inheritance rights by intestate succession (no will) determine ownership rights to property is based solely upon the status of marriage.

You changed your position somewhat by speaking of "separate religion from the running of government." Originally, you use the buzz phrase "separation of church and state" and that phrase was not used by the founding fathers. The only thing the First Amendment intended was to prevent the United States from creating/mandating one single church as did England with the Church of England. It was never intended to allow atheists to thwart religion as is now the case.

The First Amendment was never intended to "separate religion from the running of government" because the constitutional form of government did not make it possible for any organized religion to "run the government." Entities don't vote, citizens do.

cb1000rider wrote:That facts are that gay people are disadvantaged in the areas that you've mentioned and as such, they don't have "separate but equal" options.
Oh, and by the way, we've tried "separate but equal" and it didn't work out so well.

So what? Homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected class, so your attempt to harken back to racial issues fails.

cb1000rider wrote:If you think the options and rights are the same for same sex couples - do a little reading, particularly on inheritance and taxation differences. They're huge. I'll spare you the references. The options are very unequal in lots of cases.

I'm an attorney and I know precisely what all citizens rights are in terms of currently available partnerships. Taxation is different in terms of the different marriage deduction for federal income tax purposes, but apparently you forgot about the so-called "marriage penalty" that actually penalized married couples.

cb1000rider wrote:I've seen no one here claim that gay is "right"... The courts decision simply recognizes the inherent class unfairness and indicates that it can't continue under the law.

If by "here" you mean TexasCHLforum, you may be right. If you contend that those who support same-sex marriage in the gay community don't claim a "right" to marriage, then you are paying attention to their position. "Inherent fairness" is not a constitutional issue and that's why this decision is so dangerous.

cb1000rider wrote:Feel free to have your own morality that aligns with your beliefs and/or religion. I'll have mine... And a 3rd parties can be different. It's part of what so many people fought and died for and continue to die for....

I don't make "my morality," and this is precisely the problem. When liberals and those supporting them argue that there is no "truth," no "right," and that each person should establish their own morality, then society is doomed. There is one morality, like it or not, accept it or not.

I also could not disagree with you more on the issue of what our servicemen fought and died for in so many wars. I dare say my father's comrades didn't risk their lives in WWII to support gay marriage, nor did my generation in Vietnam, or subsequent generations in the middle east. I don't know of one single serviceman who went to war so people back home could take an "anything goes" approach to morality. Indeed, such a people would not be worth fight for, much less dying.

Chas.

Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.

VMI77 wrote:
baldeagle wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:
baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.
Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.
So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?
What if the will of the people is to confiscate all the wealth of people earning more than $50,000 a year and redistribute it among those "less fortunate?" What if the will of the people is to ban all firearm ownership? Should the will of the people be ignored? This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. What's supposed to happen is that an executive branch that implements the law is checked and balanced by representatives who understand and uphold the constitution and are checked and balanced by courts that understand and uphold the constitution. While the system doesn't work anymore, it was never meant to be an instrument for implementing the will of the people.

Why do you feel the need to resort to such extremes to make a point? Doing so costs credibility.

The will of the people within constitutional bounds is precisely the foundation upon which the country was formed. Now allowing same sex marriage has nothing to do with constitutionally protected rights like ownership of property and Second Amendment rights.

Chas.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 10 matches

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history

Re: Today is a sad day in American history