Thank you.  Excellent.  Lesson learned.

the President has it wrong again.The only ‘religious’violence is Muslim violence. ..it is not Christian, Sikh, Hindu etc. and there is much more more in non-religious cirlces. One cannot help but see again how fervently this President is covering up for Islamic extremists. ANd he too is guilty for his attack on religious freedom,with his HHS mandate. .. take a look at yourself!.... and take a look at the billions the Christians pour out charitable every year for needy Americans and non-Americans!... no one has given as much!... especially by the Catholic Church, let this be remembered. And may the President also address the thousands of bombs thrown on Christians in Muslim lands, especially in Iraq and Egypt.. his bias is obvious!

Islam is a political movement with a “religion” attached.  A mosque is a breeding ground for hatred, distrust and plotting.  Islam is winning in the world and the Christians have pretty much let it happen.  Christians are too interested in secular things like i-this and that, and don’t remember Christ and His Church.  The West has degenerated into a mush of the humanity it was intended to be and once was.  We must get back to Christ or we are “toast”.  Peace and God bless.

@paul wood,
You did read the part where this claimed to be an interview with a President in the future?  This article is not meant to be a direct attack on President Obama’s current position regarding the first amendment, but rather the second amendment. 

I would also point out that religious violence is not just an Islamic problem.  Hindu fundamentalists have attacked Christians in India (as well as Muslims, but since the violence goes both ways there, it is harder to assign blame).  And I suspect that there have been other examples with other religions in other parts of the world.

We know that sin has always been in the world. since Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. I am 62 years old, and I practice my Catholic faith. It so sad that we are living in this age of so much moral decline. We need to get back to obeying the Ten Commandments and putting God as the center of our lives. I agree with you about the muslims,  it is a political organization wanting to destroy the Christian religion. I can’t understand the people of this world. The muslims said that they will over come Europe through the wombs of there women. We are killing babies all over the world in the womb. As you said that we need to get back to Our Lord Jesus Christ. God is with us. as stated The lord said to my lord sit at my right hand: until I make those in Eminity with you your footstool.

Last year a Rasmussen poll showed that only 22% of Americans say that the government has their consent.  The Constitution is now invoked only ritually.  Washington doesn’t even pretend to adhere to the 10th Amendment, so it’s no surprise when it rationalizes away the others also.  Hail Caesar!  Just keep the bread and circus coming.

See, the thing about reductio ad absurdum is that it only works if the reductio is absurdum. I fear that in this case, the concept of “religion control” is not all that absurd or too far off.

Otherwise, though, this is an apt analogy.

let’s face it,, so much of the attack on religion, including that of the President, is our own fault , we Catholics. Catholics allow and vote these people in, pay more attention the politicians than to the HOly See, abort,and contracept as much as others. .. weak lousy unfaithfulness has been our downfall! Interesting how if affects everyone! I took 40 graduate theology courses at Catholic institutions. Not a single professor every even referred to Pope John Paul II, opposed abortion,,, it was ‘do what you want’.. as if the Church were nothing…. we can expect as much! Too bad, since the Middle Eastern Christians are excellent Christians they breath and die for their faith.. they should not have to tolerate persecutions. ... the key to all of this, I believe, is ‘faithfulness’,.. if we are not faithful to the Vicar of Christ, at least be honest enough to leave.

Because the right to bear arms is just as fundamental as religious freedom, especially the right to practice the one true Catholic faith.

By equating the Second Amendment, this weird historical remnant that may have some justifications in America but make the rest of humanity, past, present and probably future, go “huh ?”, with religious freedom, the most important of God-given rights, you are seriously undermining religious freedom, at a time when it’s under grievous attack by this Administration. Not a very smart move.

But as for the Second Amendment, and in all seriousness, I think the only one who spoke the truth about it is that crazy guy who appeared on that show with the British guy (you all know who I mean, I don’t want to google it). The crazy guy honestly said that the point of the Second Amendment was not, in the mind of the Framers, a way for individual citizens to ensure their protection against common thiefs or hunt deers (why would have the Framers care about that enough to put it in the Bill of rights ?) ; it was, actually, to act as a ultimate safeguard ensuring that if the legal Gouvernment of the United States ever turned tyrannical (as the Framers thought the British benevolent Government suddenly turned tyrannical by imposing taxes on tea and stamps), the citizenry could rise up and use weapons to massacre the US Army and overthrow the US Government. The 2nd Amendement is, without a doubt, the most extreme, radical and leftist article of all the articles of the US Constitution. It is very close in spirit to the political thought of the “Jacobins”, the far-left, blood-thirsty, proto-anarchist and proto-communist Revolutionnaries, like Robespierre, Marat, Danton and Saint-Just who took over the already bloody French Revolution and made it way bloodier during the years 1793-1794 (“la Terreur”). In addition to murdering thousands of priests, aristocrats and suspected counter-revolutionnaries, they wrote a Constitution that, just like the 2nd Amendment, affirmed as a fundamental civil right, the right of the citizenry to otherthrow their tyrannical Government through armed rebellion, exactly the same thing as the 2nd Amendment.

So you see what I’m getting at : first and foremost, try to freak out most defenders of the 2nd Amendment, who are generally peaceful, mild-mannered Conservative who will know learn that they’ve been defending a Revolutionary, proto-communist Amendment ; but also, try to make everyone ask oneself whether or not they agree that it is a good thing that the Constitution protects the right of the citizenry to shoot to death the US Army and massacre (or force to resign at gunpoint) the US Government in case said Government threatens to become tyrannical ? If yes, then the 2nd Amendement should remain. If no, then it should be removed from the Constitution. And maybe another base could be searched for to justify the possibility to bear arms for individual protection or hunting, but the 2nd Amendement cannot be that base. Crazy guy was absolutely right on that.

I am sad that the NC Register keeps posting pro-gun pieces like this given their variance with the relevant sections of the catechism and with the church’s stated positions on firearms (which are summed up reasonably well here: http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians).  Catholic orthodoxy is not in all circumstances aligned with the politics of the center-right.

It occurs to me that what is wrong with our world is that we are throwing the bathwater out with the baby. I didn’t say that wrong. Society has decided it is good to get rid of babies and we are facing so many consequences whether or not they are intended. The lack of respect for human life leads to a “dirty” culture, thus my assertion that we have thrown out the bathwater. Restricting guns will not solve the problem, because the problem is much deeper.

Becky
Your comment is disingenuous and totally besides the point.

First off, your assertion that a paper written by a non-authoritative sub-committee of a non-authoritative Bishop’s conference constitutes ‘stated Church teaching’ is ridiculous on its face.  If you know this it makes you a liar and if you don’t it makes you woefully ignorant.  Pick your poison.

Secondly, this is not a pro-gun piece.  It only serves to illustrate that the progressive tactics used to undermine one constitutionally protected right can be used to undermine others.  You don’t need to be ‘pro-gun’ to recognize the truth in that.

As a disgusted Catholic, I can say that I’m just as disgusted with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and my leftwing, bat@#$% stupid local priest, as I am with Barack Obama. The Catholic Church has played ‘footsie’ with hard left politics for years (‘Living Wages’, ‘Universal Healthcare’ ‘Gun Control’, etc.) and now the Catholic Church must dance to the devil’s tune, or close many of its institutions. The Catholic Church will lose its lawsuit against Obama’s abortion funding mandate and then it will scratch its head, wondering what happened. That’s just the begining! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

Becky,

US Catholic? Really?

I think an interesting component of Archibold’s scenario is the fact that this future administration uses violence AGAINST religious to restrict religion. His scenario is a punish the victim response.

A few months ago, I made the point that it is silly to fret that religious rioting could happen in America
http://theontologicallapsometer.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-there-will-never-be-religious.html

I think Archibold’s point however is that it simply doesn’t matter whether we have outbreaks a religious rioting or not. Any violence against religious could feasibly be used as a front to restrict religion.

Now, I think you can argue that restrictions or controls around guns aren’t exactly a punish the victim response - the best possible face of gun control efforts is the claim that responsible government ought to limit the ability of deranged individuals to kill lots of people in a short amount of time. However, there are so many issues that are being neglected, not the least of which is that the fact that the restrictions that the government is talking about issuing will primarily impact those who have not posed any threat to anyone or who have violated any laws. It is a case, at least in part, of restriction the law-abiding in response to the lawless. Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on the whole debate. However, the conversation is so disingenuous here that it makes you suspicious even if you’re not a big advocate of unlimited access to every weapon out there.

“the conversation is so disingenuous here” specifically, I mean the President’s conversation is so disingenuous

Weak argument if you’re attempting to suggest that gun control and religion control are somehow comparable.  Naturally, all rights in the Constitution are somewhat limited.  I have a freedom of speech - but I can’t say “bomb” on an airplane.  We have freedom of press - but slander can never be tolerated.  I’m still trying to determine where I stand on the gun issue - but to say that assault weapons are not to be in the hands of the average citizen doesn’t seem that bizarre.  In essence we’d be saying, “I’m struggling to come up with a reason that a citizen needs an semi-automatic machine gun.”  And I’m not sure what reason a practicing Christian could come up with for wanting to hold a semi-automatic machine gun.

Rifles / Shotguns - sure, hunting makes sense.
Semi-automatic pistols - absolutely. home defense is completely justified.
AR-15 - I can’t come up with something reasonable here.  Protection from intruders?  Not necessary.  In America, how frequent does an entire militia come to your home from whom you need an assault rifle to protect yourself?  Protection from the government?  Dream on - they’ll use an unmanned drone to drop a bomb on you.

I agree with you that Obama is a lunatic that can’t be trusted.  I agree with you that the assault on religious freedom in the US (most of the world at this point) is unacceptable and a grave concern.  I agree with you that the government (all branches) can and will use unjustifiable arguments to justify grave evils (Roe v. Wade).  All I’m saying is that your arguments are going to have to be stronger than suggesting that we shouldn’t be allowed to limit certain rights on the premise that one day all rights could be stripped.  It is a delicate balance - yes.  And one that I fear current American society (and our moron politicians) are incapable of managing - but limits are absolutely needed for all freedoms provided in the Constitution.

“non-authoritative sub-committee of a non-authoritative Bishop’s conference” Pat, your characterization of the USCCB does beg the question then, what pastoral role does the Bishop’s Conference have, if any? Your take come off as a bit disdainful.
You might have done better to just correct Becky in that your article was not pro-guns or anti-gun control but more of an example of how Orwelian “newspeak” is being used to manipulate national conversations and set the stage for problematic legislation and/or Executive Orders. Calling her out as a liar or ignorant is an over-reaction and just hurts your own position.

@Matt: “but to say that assault weapons are not to be in the hands of the average citizen doesn’t seem that bizarre.

Unless the people are attacked by tyrants and mobs, evil doers and idiots. The word “attacked” is essential to understanding the situation. When the Vatican came out with an opinion of gun control, the Vatican specifically wrote “contraband” that is, illegal weapons. Now, if Obama makes all assault weapons “illegal” then, these guns would be called “contraband”. Any criminal having a gun has a “contraband” weapon because the criminal is not supposed to have a gun of any kind.

Religion control: Bring it on against the atheist, against those who say man has no immortal soul, against those who abort the human soul after conception, against those who say man has no unalienable civil rights because man has no transcendent metaphysical life. Bring it on. The civil rights of the atheist, the gay practitioner, the abortionist, all claiming religious freedom needs to be reviewed in a court of law where only truth is accorded freedom of speech. Straight Judges are being told to recuse themselves because they are “straight” instead of homosexually oriented. A fake husband, a fake wife, now, a fake judge, like Vaughn Walker, the judge of Proposition 8 a practicing homosexual.

Mary De Voe,

There is no evidence that Judge Walker’s private life in any way influneced his decision on Prop 8.  Federal judges come from many diverse backgrounds and teh FRamers certainly did not put intot he Constitution any requirement that federal judges have to be straight, Roman Catholic, etc.

judge Walker’s decision, based on the US Constittuion and other settled legal principle, is clearly spelled out.  If you disagree with his decision, please set out the rational legal principle of American jurisprudence for your disagreement.

jusut remember that our federal government is made up of people many of whom are of only average intelligence, even more of whom have very limited knowledge and more than a few of whom are of questionable moral character.  in addition, they were selected by people sporting most of those same characteristics who based their votes far more often on personal gain than communal good.  then go out and absorb the RCC’s teachings about the desirability of implementing the principle of subsidiarity when it come to governmental systems.  that should provide you with a direction for assisting people in understanding their roles and responsibilities as members of a society where the secular government is a democratic federalist system.  finally, it is best to always keep in mind that secular governments and many religious governments reserve to themselves the right to use physical force and the threat of physical force to deny people their inalienable right to self-detrmination.  hopefully, that will temper any undue respect or support for secular governments that you might be feeling.

@Mary De Voe,
Mary, not sure I follow your point.  I’m not looking for the Vatican to make a statement on gun control.  It seems this is mostly a matter of prudential judgement for a society rather than if it is morally permissible for a citizen to hold an assault weapon.  Here in the US, I hardly think we have concerns over being attacked by mobs, evil doers & idiots.  And if so, a pistol would probably be sufficient.  And if not, we have larger issues.  Perhaps it is more prudent to permit assault weapons in a less orderly society.  But here in the US, it’s rather foolish to suggest we will *likely* need assault weapons to defend ourselves at any point in our lives.

Eddie Too,

First and foremost, the USA is NOT an RC theocracy or even a Christian nation.  We are a nation of many diverse faith traditions. 

No government is perfect.  All governments are the result of the efforts of imperfect human beings (all of us).  And WE are the government.  Its NOT us v. them.  We are the government. 

In the US, OUR governemnt (all of us) have the inalienable right of self-dtermination. Since 1789, we have had a an excleent system of government (its not perfect and we have to keep working to make it better).  But bravo for secular government!!  ANY type of theocracy would be a disaster.  The pope is welcome to stay in the Vatican state and the RCC is welcome to keep its mitts off our Constitution and our government. 

Are you advocating for NO government, for anarchy?

Mary de Voe,

Yes, we need to ban assault weapons.  There is no reason for any citizen needs to have them.  Ronald reagan agreed with that approach, even Antonin Scalia agrees with that approach.  We also need to ban high-capacity magazines/clips.  No eason for those to be in the hands of citizens either.

No hunter needs such weapons, no target shooter (shooting skeet, etc) no homeowner needs such weapons.

“but we must realize that we have a religious violence problem in this country and in the world. More people have died in the name of religion than for any other reason.”

Yes, In the name of his Islamic religion this would be true.  Shalom!

lisa kaiser,

i only advocated that people view the world with clarity and recognize the reason that the RCC rightly teaches the significance of the principle of sudsidiarity to a well-ordered society.  the RCC is also a system of governance.  it is the system designed by and provided to human beings by the Incarnate Word.  the RCC does not resort to physical force or the threat of physical force to gain compliance with its laws and regulations from the people over which it governs.

i readily acknowledge that secular government is a necessary evil.  secular government is a necessary evil because of the diversity of thought, teachings and cultures over which it attempts to rule.  the fact that secular society must resort to violence to maintain its position of dominance speaks volumes to the righteousness of its tenure.

if, as you say, we are the government, then we must answer for the over fifty million innocent pre-born human beings we made it legal to murder.  is our guilt determined by the extent, degree and enthusiasm with which we stand behind our secular government?

Eddie Too,

The RCC has a long history of violence toward Jews, Muslims (the Crusades), toward other Christians (during the Crusades) toward the native peoples of the Americas, toward Protestants—violence met to get Jews et al to comply with the lawas and regulations of the RCC.  That history is behind the RCC only because the Vatican state was stripped of its armies by the founding of the modern state of Italy.  The RCC is guilty of the shedding the blood of many, many innocent people over 2 millenia.  Is it any less of a crime and sin of those events occurred in the distant past?  Are those murdered people any less people amde int he image of God becasue they died long ago?

More recently RC priest, bishops and cardinals have committed untold violence against children (direct sexual abuse and the deliberate covering up of that abuse).

Let me rephrase your question: is our guilt determined by the extent, degree and enthusiasm with which we stand behind the RCC?

lisa kaiser,

i find your inability to separate the message from the messenger an impediment to communication between us.  the RCC is a divine institution.  its structure was given us by God.  you were the one who said we are the government of the usa, not i.  you were the one who implied that the actions of the our government are our actions.  i neither said nor implied that the actions of sinful catholics are the actions of the divine institution.

despite the sins of its members the RCC does not use violence or the threat of violence to elicit compliance with its laws and regulations.

Eddie Too,

You said, ” The RCC does not resort to physical force or the threat of physical force to gain compliance with its laws and regulations from the people over which it governs.”  And while that is certainly true of the RCC today (although the Vatican does have its Swiss Guards, security forces, who are armed with modern weapons), it was not always true. I am merely pointing out the hsitory of the RCC—which is quite bloody and violent.  The RCC is not an innocent actor on the stage of world history or events.

The RCC is a human instituion (yes RCs beleive or may believe that the RCC is a “divine institution”, but it is run by human beings here on earth), whose structures mirror those of the Roman Empire because the structure of the RCC as we know it today was established during the time of the Roman Empire. 

And my question, a rephrasing of your question, is a legitmate one: is the guilt of RCs determined by the extent, degree and enthusiasm with which RCs stand behind the RCC?

If you believe this true of secular government, why is not true of the RCC?  Becasue RCs believe the RCC is a divine insittuion?  Violence is OK if its committed by an institution its followers beleive to be divine?  Some Mulsims believe that the the Q’ran,, which they believe to be divinely inspired, justifies violence agains non-Muslims.

Eddie Too,

You said, ” The RCC does not resort to physical force or the threat of physical force to gain compliance with its laws and regulations from the people over which it governs.”  And while that is certainly true of the RCC today (although the Vatican does have its Swiss Guards, security forces, who are armed with modern weapons), it was not always true. I am merely pointing out the hsitory of the RCC—which is quite bloody and violent. 

And certainly priests, bishops and cardinals (the institutional RCC) used pyschological violence against their victims of child sexual abuse in order to hide crimes (which were also violent), t keep victims silent and compliant.  Those were acts of institutional violence committed by the institutional RCC in nations across the world.

The RCC is not an innocent actor on the stage of world history or events.

lisa kaiser,

from all of your posts, is it correct to conclude you oppose that application of the principle of subsidiarity in the structuring of civil government?  afterall, that was my the point of my original post and we seemed to have become sidetracked.  i am signing off for tonight maybe i will be able to continue sometime tomorrow.  i hope so. God bless all!!

Lisa, I have something very simple to say to you, and that is that you don’t have the right to make that decision for me, that I don’t “need”  “high capacity” magazines or “assault rifles.”  Even if you did, banning those particular items is a knee-jerk reaction to a very complex problem.  Swimming pools are 100 times more deadly to children than guns are, but I strongly suspect you would object if I told you you cannot have one because “no one needs” a swimming pool.

Lisa, why do you post on this site with all your tired old accusations towards the Roman Catholic Church?  Forget the Inquisition and the Crusades and all the other ancient history.  We all know that more public school teachers sexualy abused children over the years, but will not be exposed because of the anti-Catholic bias of the mainstream media and because municipalities and school districts are not legally and financially liable for damages to victims, unlike the RCC.  You must realize that secular government is NOT neutral in many of the most sensitive and controversial issues today.  You say ‘we the people’ are the government - then why does our government push things like abortion or samesex ‘marriage’ on us, in direct opposition to the sensibilities of so many citizens?  And yes, Judge Vaughn Walker WAS biased in ruling on PROP 8 due to his homosexuality - do you think we are all blind and stupid?  Two men simply cannot ‘marry’ - it is a physical impossibility.  I shudder to think of what will happen to our ‘gay’ brethren when the caliphate reigns.

@Lisa Kaiser: “There is no evidence that Judge Walker’s private life in any way influneced his decision on Prop 8.” Prop 8, as you know, is the people of California voting for marriage to be one man and one woman. Judge Vaughn Walker, a practicing homosexual, did not disclose his baised, and conflicting interest in seeing Prop. 8 overturned. Where is it you see Judge Walkers’ fairness? Would Judge Walker not have announced his choice of alternate lifestyle and put the issue before the voters, if indeed he was fair?

Always interesting when you can totally create an interview and put in any scenario you want.  The future midget, budist, president that wants to take tax height, and eye color…

Like when Rush Limbaugh made up a Hillary interview in his book. 

You should see the interview with a future pope I must made up. 

The Archbolds should just spew on Creative Minority and leave decent blogs alone.

Just one mans opinion.

Erika Evans,
Thanks for your post.
I don’t think most folk who comment on gun control have much experience with firearms.Terms like “semi-automatic” & “assault rifles” are thrown around like dirty words without even understanding what they actually mean.
Pretty much any rifle, even small caliber, can be modified into an “assault rifle.” 
I wish we could address the issues of angry,troubled, young men & mental illness,& the increasingly graphic violence in films & video games,etc.

Maary De Voe,

Why does a judge have to announce anything about his/her private life?  Nobody said anything when for stright judges rules against gay people..  Its OK for strigth judges to do that without announcing that heyare stright and biased against gay Americans???

Also, judgees interpret law.  It is the job of legislatures to put issues on ballots.  Judges do not have that power.  Again, you cite no evidence that Judge Walker was in any way biased.  Please refer to his written opinion in the case and pelase cite where you understand he made errors in his interpretation of the law.

I doubt that Judge Walker is a “practicing” homosexual.  He probably has perfected it and does not need to practice!

Eileen G,

Your comments are not rational.  Please know that the majority of Americans support same sex marriage.  And please know that fundamental rights are not subject to vote—they are inalienable rights.  The 14th Amendment of the US Consittution guarantees equal protection under the law to ALL Americans.  We also live in antion we pledge to to have “liberty and justice for all”. 

In Judge Walkers written opinion, please cite passagews where you udnerstand he made errors in interpreting the law.

EillenG and Mary De Voe,

Why do you autmotically assume a gay judge cannot/will not intepret the law correctly in accordance with settled legal principles???  So Black judges cannot/will interpret the law correctly in cases that involve white people??  Judges of one sax cannot/will not interpret the law correctly in cases involving members of the opposite sex???  Hispanic judges cna only interpret the law correctly in cases invovling Hispanics???  Your prejudice re Judge Walker is just that—prejudice with no basis in fact.

Erika,

I do not have the right to make decisions for you—that is correct.  But Congress does, state legisltures do. All Consittutional rights are subject to regulation.  If a A constitutionl right is deemed to be a fundamental right, any regulation of it must by the government must be “compelling”.  IfOther wise governemnt regulation needs to to be “rational.”  If you do notunderstand these legal terms, a little reading will help you.  Caroline Kennedy wrote an excellent book on the Constitution meant for non-lawyers.

do not forget that representative democracy is a system where a majority of people of average intelligence, limited knowledge and possessing ethical and moral chacter across the entire spectrum of ethics and morality, select people of equally average intelligence, limited knowledge and varied moral and ethical character to regulate and govern their lives.

knowing this is the intrinsic nature of representative democracy, it is foolish for those submitting to those elected to give the most power to the fewest people.  it is sheer and utter foolishness.  in fact, the founders of america know this, they believed this and they tried to create a government that would compensate for this innate weakness of representative government.    appeals to the actions of the central government as supporting one’s positions is the weakest of all appeals to authority.  it is the absolute weakest of all appeals and reveals a great deal about the intelligennce and knowledge of those who would make such appeals an integral part of their lives and their comments.

all laws related to marriage in the usa are applied equally to all citizens of the usa.      anyone who would say otherwise is woefully ignorant or engaging in deliberate deception.

i challenge anyone reading this to cite one american law governing marriage that has not and is not being applied equally to all american citizens!!!

by the way, i have been struggling with a particular concept related to same-sex attraction.  my struggle is best expressed in this question.  how does a human being objectively prove that they experience sexual attraction to only members of their own sex?  is there an objective test that proves this or are such claims objectively unprovable?  if such claims are objectively unprovable, how can rational people legislate based on claims that cannot be objectively proven in a court of law?  these are serious questions and any insights in to their answers would be appreciated.

Eddie Too,

Gay people are allowed to marry in only a limited number of states.  The marriages of gay people are not recognized under federal alw.  So, no the laws of marriage in America are not being applied equally to all Americans.  That is why there are two cases on this very subject that the US Supreme Court will hear in March and decided by June.

Eddie Too,

No has to prove same- sex attraction in acourt of law.  No one has to prove attraftion to the opposite sex in a court of law—there is no objective for proving that stright people are only attracted to other straight people either.

And the issue of same-sex marriage is NOT about same-sex attraction.  The legal issue with same-sex marriage is the equal application of the laws of marriage to people who want to marry a person of the same sex.  The legal question is whether the 14th Amendment ‘s equal protection clause applies to Americans wanting to marry someone of the sme sex.

lisa kaiser,

what states have laws that forbid a person from marrying if they are gay?  how does any government know if a person is gay?  how do gays prove under the law that they are gay?  to the best of my understanding and knowledge, thousands if not millions of gay people have married in america.

Eddie Too,

Are you asking serious questions???  Do you truly not know this stuff??

Many state have laws that specificially say in writing that marriage applies only to one man and one woman.  These states will not issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex.  One does not have to prove one is gay. The legal issue is not about being gay.  The legal issue is about people of the same sex being able to marry.

Currently only 9 states permit people of the same sex to marry.  And even in those states, those marriages are not recognized under federal law or by other states (and that failure is also a Constitutional issue—per the Full Faith and Crdit Clause of the US Constitution).

And NO, thousands and millions of gay Americans have NOT been married in the US.  Do you not follow the news????  Are you living on anther planet???o

lisa kasiser,

thank you for making it clear that your concern is not related to same-sex attraction.  you should be able to understand the confusion you raised by using the word gay (which i understood to mean people who experience sexual attaction to only members of the same-sex) in all of your comments.  now i realize that your concern is and you oppose the fact that there is a state sanctioned and supported institution that is designed to assist and encourage the human relationship that can result in the procreation of human beings.  having said that, i am still unclear on why you believe the state should destroy that institution (the one designed to encourage and assist the relationship that results in procreation) and replace it with an institution that encourages and assists relationships between any two citizens.  i can understand why the state might want to encourage and assist the human relationship that can result in new citizens.  i do not understand why the state should invovle itself in other types of private human relationships.  the relationship that results in procreation is clearly, distinctly and essentially different from a private relationship that is unrelated to procreation but that can exist between any two humans regardless of its procreative aspects.

lisa kaiser,

i know personally people who have been married and subsequently left that marriage and declared themselves to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.  i realize that such people are not technically gay because they also, obviously, experienced sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex.  but, they have applied the term gay to themselves.  maybe we should agree on the definition of the word “gay” before we use it?  and, even if the word gay is accurately assigned only to those people who experience sexual attraction ONLY to members of the same sex, it does not necessarily follow that these people have never been married in the usa.  it could be that they entered in to civil marriage with a member of the opposite sex and subsequently were never sexually aroused by their partner.

Eddie Too,

No one is seeking to destroy anything.  The legal issue to recognize teh constitutional right of people to marry partners of the same sex.  That has no impact upon the ability of anyone to marry partners of the opposite sex.

And osrry, amrriage is NOT about procreation.  You would deny marriage to older people, to people who do not wnat to have children, to people who cannot have children becasue of physical disability, biological infertility, etc????

Sorry, if you having trouble following this discussion (you don;t understand what it is to be gay???).  you want to be silly about the definitions because you think that makes you look like you are smart???  What???

lisa kaiser,

i really do not understand your concept of equality.  there are many types of human relationships.  the question is to what extent must they be identical to require they be treated the same under the law.  the government makes several kinds of stipulations as to who can enter into its institution of civil marriage.  it stipulates age.  it stipulates degree of blood relationship.  it seems if the government creates an institution out of a type of human relationship it also maintains the right to define that relationship.  i cannot see the logic in saying that the government must treat two substantially different types of human relationship identically.  the government creates all kinds of legal human relationships and it treats them all differently under the law.  why should this power of the government not extend to the marital relationship?  it is obvious that the government treats the marital relationship differently from all other human relationships.  it also treats business partnerships (which can also be between two human beings) differently from all other human relationships.  it treats the coporative relationship differently from the partnership relationship and the marital relationship.  the government establishes all kinds of human relationshipsthat under the law and treats them all differently.  why does this principle not apply to the relationship between two people of the same sex?  what logically requires the government to treat the relationship between two members of the same sex as though it is a marital relationship?  i just do not see the logic in such a claim.

lisa kaiser,

since your brought it up, where does the u.s. constitution address same sex marriage?

lisa kaiser,
the only reason the state created civil marriage is the fact that the male female relationship often results in procreation.  why do you think the state created civil marriage?

lisa kaiser,
since you did not address it, i guess you agreed with my assertion that gay people are allowed to marry in the usa.  perhaps i should have added the additional fact that marital law in the usa prohibits BOTH gays and non-gays from marrying a member of the same sex.  the laws of the usa are applied the same regardless of the sexual attractions its citizens experience and you know it.

Eddie Too,

The legal issue is the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution—the equal protection clause.  You might to read some news articles about the the same-sex marriage cases that will be argued before the US Suprme Court in March. 

Also, civil marriage is NOT about procreation, it is alegally binding contract between parties and the reason for the contract is to protect both any children of the marriage and to protect the property of the marriage.  So procreation is certainly THE reason civil marriage was created and it is NOT the ONLTY reason civil marriage was created.

Since marriage is alegally binding contract between the parties, a legal process is required to dissolve it ( we call that divorce). 

Again you think you are being cute, but you are just making yourself look silly with by splittiung hairs re “gay"or “not gay”, etc.

lisa kaiser,

the marriage laws in the usa are applied exactly the same to each citizen. no one in the usa is denied the right to enter civil marriage because of the nature of their sexual attractions.  you know this is true.  you just do not like the fact that marriage is defined as the union of a human male and a human female.  you want to change that definition solely because you do not like it.  it nothing to do with equality.  words have meaning.  marriage has always and everywhere meant the union of a male human being and a female human being.  only elected representatives should be able to change the legal definitons of words.  judges do not have the power to change the legal definitions of words.

Eddie Too,

Sorry you buy into the anti-American, anti-equality bigotry.  Neither you nor I will have the last word on this subject.  The US Supreme Court will hear the same-sex marriage cases in March and render a decision by June (if not before).  The nine Justices of the Court will issue the last words on this subject vis a vis American law.

being told one’s views are bigoted pretty much forecloses the possibility of future positive exchanges with the person doing the namecalling.

Eddie Too,

Well if the shoe fits….

lisa kaiser,

to stoop briefly to your level, and your mama too.

Eddie Too,

I will take your comment as an acknowlegement from you that you understand that I am correct in my assessment that opposing equality under the law for all Americans is a bigoted stance

not at all, it was just an attempt to humorously draw attention your decision to abandon rational discussion and resort to name calling.  tht is what speaks to the realative depths and intellectual clarity of both of our positions.  by the way, you never did answer my question about how does a human being prove that they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex?  did you overlook that question or deliberately ignore it because you cannot think of any way such an assertion can be proven?

Eddie Too,

Why does anyone have to prove they are sexually attracted to anyone?  That is not legal requirement for marriage.  Straight people do not have to prove they are sexually attracted to the person they want to marry.

Why this obessession with people having to prove they are atrracted to people of the same sex?  Are you trying to figure out if you are attracted to people of the sme sex?

just asking.  it is something i have not heard addressed by anyone in the debate.  i never said it was related to the issue of same-sex marriage.  i am just interested in learning if information exists that explains how a person can prove that he or she is only sexually attracted to a member of the same sex.  i am always open to learning and that is a question to which i have been unable to find a satisfactory answer.  i take it you have no information to provide on the subject?  also, if a person cannot prove that he or she is only attracted to members of the same sex, then being so attracted cannot be grounds for claiming legal discrimination.

i fully understand that the issue of same sex marriage is completely unrelated to the kind of sexual attraction human beings experience.  i completely understand that any two men or any two women would, if same sex marriage became available, be able to enter into such a marriage and receive whatever marital benefits the government makes available to married couples without the relatonship having any benefit to the government.  roommates for example would be foolish not to enter into same sex marriage if they could reap financial benefits by doing so and if sexual intimacy is unrelated to the institution.

Eddie Too,

Does information exist that explains how a person can prove that he or she is only sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex?  I think you off on a tangent that has no bearing on anything.  People should be permitted to marry partners of the same sex or the opposite sex.  Having to “prove” sexual attraction has nothing to do with that.  Proving sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage.  Yes, sexual initimacy is unrelated to the legal requirements of marriage (I think you must never been married!)

When people are denied equal protection under the law based on the sex of the person they wish to marry—that is discrimination and unconstituional.

Nobody questions why straight people want to get married, nobody questions the status of their sexual intimacy.

Really you seem obsessed with with stuff that has nothing to do with legal/constitutional questions re marriage.

so you are like me.  you have no knowledge whether not there is a way for a person to prove that they are sexually attracted to only members of the same sex.  that does not surprise me.  i am beginning to believe that people can claim whatever sexual attraction that they wish at any given time and will do so based on what they want for themselves at any give time.  besides, you are pretty much ignorant of the legal issues surrounding the subject of same sex marriage.  that is why i have few questions for you on the subject.

now that i have ascertained that you are also ignorant on the subject of whether or not a person can prove objectively who or what attracts them sexually, i will also refrain from asking you questions on that subject.

EddieToo,

No I am not ignorant of the legal issues surrounding same sex marriage.  Iam quite conversant with the issues.  They are constitutional issues—specificially issue relating to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

And no, I am not ignorant about proof of sexual attraction.  I am not discussing it with you because its a tangent that has nothing to do with the legal requirements of marriage.  And really who cares who is attracted to whom, or why or when?  What difference does it make?  Why are you so obsessed with people having to prove if they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex or of the opposite sex? Your questions seem juvenile and obsseive.  And irrelevant.

People marry for all sorts of reasons.  Sexual attraction to the partner is usually a big reason, but certainly not the only reason.  And its not the only reason people stay married.  Again, nobody has to prove anything about sexual attraction in order to get married.

I am sensing you are trying to figure out if are gay or not.  And I am sensing that you have never been married.

  Shotguns folks for self defense in homes.  They have special home defense loads now with low muzzle velocity that wreck your criminal opponent but do not travel through two walls to kill your next door neighbor if you miss the perp.
Mossberg mariner…9shots and put five on the stock with an accessory.  14 shot shells will do it if you’re meant by God to win.  Motion detectors if you’re under criminal threat at one extra inherited address like I am.  Gun is useless without motion detectors when you’re sleeping.

ps….know where your gas lines are and keep them out of the line of fire.

Bill,
Good point about shotguns, thanks.You don’t want to take out family members in the next room, either.
A concealed carry class instructor told us that putting an NRA membership sticker on your door was,according to criminals,a deterrant when deciding which house to break into. They’d rather not take a chance encountering an armed home owner.

Kathleen,
  That is generally true but if they are crystal clear that you are not home, they might enter for the guns which happened in NY after a newspaper gave the addresses of gun owners.  Hide a long gun in plain sight when you leave home…e.g. a shotgun in paint covered pants on the floor with paint brushes thrown on it and a paint can with it….or in the cellar sink next to a mop and rags covering it.  Number one tip: if there are any evergreens covering a window, that is heaven to thieves because they can break the window from behind it when traffic passes and a car makes some noise.  Happened to our second house…ouch the taxes….which we’re fixing for resale when the market turns up…in a somewhat tough area which looks better than it is.

ps Kathleen,
    They know you’re not home by ringing the bell.  If you answer, they may ask directions to ? Home Depot etc…..if you don’t answer, they can break in.  It also tells them ifyou have a dog.

ps 2 Kathleen,
    “Lifetime for Women” repeatedly shows how armed women lose against intruders: the let him talk and they let him walk as he’s talking (toward them).  Do neither.  One step toward you even if unarmed, blast him but know your state laws for verbal protocols required if any.  New Jersey is a nightmare for self defense and I’ve several times ignored them but don’t do as I do.

bill,
Thanks again.The NRA produced a great gun safety/self defense video we had to watch in the class.There are a lot of potential legal repercussions when you try to defend yourself.Shooting a firearm should be the last resort.
Where I live pretty much everyone has a firearm at home.Maybe the NRA sticker tells thieves the owner has more of an attitude…?
:)

Just a note on gun control-here’s what we may have in store one day:

“A West Lothian man has been sentenced to 150 hours of unpaid work for illegally possessing a gun he inherited as a memento of his grandfather.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-21278736

The poor man could have faced a 5 year sentence under British law.

@eddie too. The gay agenda has co-opted the concept of “marriage” and demand to have equality in “marriage”, but what gay practitioners do is not the marital act, it is the homosexual act. St. Thomas More asked: “If the king says the world is flat, will that make the world flat?” So, If the Supreme Court says that homosexual behavior is marital behavior will that make homosexual behavior into marital behavior? What it will do is lessen the credibility of the Supreme Court to deliver Justice, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Fake husbands and fake wives is perjury in a court of law.

@eddie too: My neighbor was a mail order bride from Poland. Had she been a male, the man would have been swindled, and greatly so. She had a wonderful life with the older man, but he died too soon. Her daughter Mary became my best friend.

The militant gays and posterity destroyers have silenced the bible truth and prefer their own made-up truth. Abortion rights and gay rights activists pervert and deny the human soul. America’s destiny is engaged in bringing freedom to each and every person. The truth will make you free.

@bill bannon: “One step toward you even if unarmed, blast him but know your state laws for verbal protocols required if any.”

Thank you for this.

Mary De Voe,

First this no “gay agenda”.  Gay Americans seek to have equal protection under the law per the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.  In other words, gay Americans wnat their constitutional rights recognized as the rights of all other Americans are recognized via the 14th Amendment.  This is NOT “special treatment” or any kind of “agenda”.  Gay Americans want the sme rights as other Americans.  Equality, fairness—its not the way of the RCC, but is the way of the USA.

Secondly, same sex marriage, when legalized per federal law is NOT “perjury”.  Perjury is: the deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath. 

So legal same-sex marriage is just NOT the same thingas perjury.  Don’t know why you think that, or who told you that, but its just plain inaccurate.  I am an old lawyer and know from perjury.

As for the Supreme Court—there are many decisions in many areas of law over the more than two centuries of our nation that many people have not like or that have been characterized as a lessening the Court’s credibility.  the nation has survived them all and when the justices legalize same-sex marriage by June at the latest, the nation and the world will survive that as well.  After all, the the 9 states that have legalized smae-sex marriage have not fallen into the sea, the nations that have legalized same sex marrige have not fallen into the sea.  Western civilizationa as we know it has not ended.

Mary De Voe,

There are no “miltant gays”—only Americans who are gay and who are justly seeking recognition of their rights per the 14th Amendment of the US Consititution.  Gay people do not “pervert” or destroy” the human soul.  That’s some blank assertion with no meaning or basis in fact.    Gay people are people amde in the image of God, loved by God.

Secondly, the USA is not ruled by the scripture of any faith tradition.  When we as Americans pledege allegiance to our flag and to the republic for which it stand, we acknowledge that we seek “liberty adn justice” for all”—that includes gay Americans.  So yes, you are correct in that
“America’s destiny is engaged in bringing freedom to each and every person.”—and that inlcudes gay Americans.

Lisa Kaiser
Have you been to San Francisco where naked gays do ungodly things in public to violate themselves?  The North American Man Boy Love Assn. makes it official that young boys can be raped by men and without having reached the age of informed sexual consent, emancipation and manhood. Indoctrinating an alternate lifestyle to the captive audience of minor children in grammar school is a “gay agenda”. Equal protection under the law according to the 14th Amendment means that the state has a duty to protect a sovereign person’s Creator endowed, unalienable rights. The court must provide the truth. The truth about homosexual behavior is that homosexual behavior is not marriage. Gay Americans have a right to marry the opposite sex, but not to deny another person’s human soul. Gay Americans want to redefine human beings as having no immortal human soul and marriage as homosexual behavior. The gay agenda is to inculcate and indoctrinate our constitutional posterity into homosexual and alternate lifestyles, to rewrite two thousand years of tradition and deviate from the “laws of nature and nature’s God”. Equality and fairness dictate that our constitutional posterity be given freedom to exercise their conscience to their own happiness.

Lisa Kaiser:
One witness is no witness. Definitely, incomplete testimony under oath. Although homosexual acts have consequences, another person is not one of them. A child is evidence of the complete marital act, when two become one. All persons come into being through a mother and a father. A mother and a father come into being when a child is begotten. Two witnesses establish a judicial fact. Misleading testimony would include a man pretending to be a “bride”, or a woman pretending to be a “groom”. Abuse. As “an old lawyer” you ought to know that saying “legal same-sex marriage” over and over again does not make it so. When the Supreme Court fails to deliver the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, It fails as a court. There you go again, “legalize same-sex marriage.” 4 times.
Who is “WE”? You do not speak for me. As “an old lawyer” you ought to know better. “We the people” have all come into the world through one man and one woman, and the word: “Marriage” belongs to us. Go make up your own words. All men are created equal. What they do with their pursuit of Happiness will determine their destiny. The Supreme Court’s duty is to present the truth to the citizens. Is it the truth when a man calls another man his bride? When a man dooms his seed of life to entrails? Justice is predicated on intent. Can the Supreme Court intend to serve Justice and deliver pretense? The injury done to our constitutional posterity, all future generations, dissuading them from their rightful destiny, the pursuit of Happiness, after they are brought into the world, IF they are brought into the world, which cannot be accomplished by the gay partnership, is inestimable, for who, but the sovereign person, may live out his own life without impediments from vice, and error.

Lisa Kaiser:
One witness is no witness. Definitely, incomplete testimony under oath. Although homosexual acts have consequences, another person is not one of them. A child is evidence of the complete marital act, when two become one. All persons come into being through a mother and a father. A mother and a father come into being when a child is begotten. Two witnesses establish a judicial fact. Misleading testimony would include a man pretending to be a “bride”, or a woman pretending to be a “groom”. Abuse. As “an old lawyer” you ought to know that saying “legal same-sex marriage” over and over again does not make it so. When the Supreme Court fails to deliver the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, It fails as a court. There you go again, “legalize same-sex marriage.” 4 times.
Who is “WE”? You do not speak for me. As “an old lawyer” you ought to know better. “We the people” have all come into the world through one man and one woman, and the word: “Marriage” belongs to us. Go make up your own words. All men are created equal. What they do with their pursuit of Happiness will determine their destiny. The Supreme Court’s duty is to present the truth to the citizens. Is it the truth when a man calls another man his bride? When a man dooms his seed of life to entrails? Justice is predicated on intent. Can the Supreme Court intend to serve Justice and deliver pretense?

Mary De Voe,

The job of teh US Supreme Court is to interpret the US Constitution.  And yes, the Constittuion and marriage belong to ALL American, including gay Americans.

The North American Man Boy Love Association is a group of pedophiles.  Please DO No equate that organization with gay people in general—who are NOT about abusing children. There is no “gay agenda” and there is no “indoctrination” of young people ins chools by gay people.

I think you are confused about the US Suroeme Court and you are confused about gay people in general.  You have apparently bought into some bizarre misinformation.  And it seems perhaps that you do not realize that you know gay people.  Gay people are present in all walks of life—gay people are accountants, physicians, nurses, cashiers, truck drivers, cabbies, consturction workers, lawyers, information technology people, social workers, police officers, proscutors, state and federal civil service workers, soldiers, pharmacists, business owners, vetenarians, chiropractors, etc, etc.  You probably encounter gay people every day.  Gay people Americans work, pay taxes, are community volunteers, pray with you at your church, give to charities, etc, etc.  Gay people are NOT some aliens.  We are all children of God.

Excellent thought exercise. Too bad the discussion thread degenerated into our national obsession with homosexuals. I think the author recognizes that facts don’t support most violence and wars being religious, most people think that. Just like they believe the falsehood that I think about sex every eight seconds. Like all men do. I cannot imagine how such a fallacy ever got traction, it’s so obviously wrong. Yet, we function under many falsehoods. Atheists aren’t cultists. Islam is a religion of peace….Islam is a religion.

“There is no “gay agenda” and there is no “indoctrination” of young people in schools by gay people.” There is no “HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES”, THE PRINCE AND THE PRINCE” in public school? Well, Lisa Kaiser, I think Heather can only have one mommie.
Religion is man’s relationship with God, from God and for God. It is the duty of the state to protect man’s relationship with God.

Mary De Voe,

It is certainly NOT the state’s duty to “protect man’s relationship with God”.  That is the job of parents (gay and stright) and it is the job of churches—it is NOT the job of the state.

We doe not live a theocracy. Whose relationship with what God should be “protected”.  Would you be “protected”—only your verson of God and only version of “realtionship with God”.  We live a diverse society with diverse faith traditions.  Should only the RC version of God be protected??  What about the Hindu popytheistic faith traidtion??  What about Islam (and which version of Islam??? What about Mormonism??  Buddhism??? Judaism (and which version)???  Sikhism??  the Bahia???

If you want your children brought up with your faith radition, send them to private faith-based schools.  It is NOT the job of public schools to protect your children’s relationship with your God.