Thanks to Jore, Montana Ban on U.N. flag moves forward

As reported on the Constitution Party website....


Montana Ban on U.N. flag moves forward

by Gwen Florio
Tribune Capitol Bureau

HELENA — It would be illegal to fly the United Nations flag on state government property under a bill that received preliminary approval Friday from the House of Representatives, which deadlocked on the issue a day earlier.

“If we accept the premise that the UN is a government, somewhere along the line our national sovereignty was forfeited,” said the bill’s sponsor, Constitution Party member Rick Jore of Ronan.

His bill — in which the words “united nations” are deliberately not capitalized — also would forbid any state money being spent to support that group’s programs.

When the issue came before the House on Thursday, the vote was 50-50, meaning it didn’t pass but could be brought up again. Rep. Margarett Campbell, D-Poplar, argued vehemently against the bill’s passage on Friday. She said that if UN sanctions were invalid in Montana, then war criminals could find asylum here.

The bill states that legal actions such as subpoenas or extradition orders issued by international courts aren’t valid in Montana.

Campbell told of how her father, a World War II veteran, was taken prisoner by the Japanese and tortured before surviving the infamous Bataan Death March.

“If my father’s captors were ever held accountable for their actions by an international court, I would be outraged to think that they could ever find a safe haven in our beautiful state of Montana,” Campbell said.

Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winfred, attributed that argument to “the fuzzy moral thinking that we’re all just one big happy family.”

For anyone who buys Campbell’s reasoning, he said, “I’ve got a couple of bridges over dry coulees I’d like to sell you.” All the House Republicans, along with Jore, apparently agreed with him — the bill was approved 51-49.

Here’s the full text of House Bill 712.

111 Responses to “Thanks to Jore, Montana Ban on U.N. flag moves forward”

  1. Joe Says:

    It is a shame that such a bill is even necessary. I like the idea of not capitalizing “united nations” and I think I will follow Rick’s example on that.

  2. Anthony Distler Says:

    This is dumb. Th United Nations is an international organization, not an American organization. Representative Campbell has the right argument.

    This is just Rick Jore looking for more publicity.

  3. Joe Murphy Says:

    Thank God Rick is leading the charge in restoring our constitutional republic. Anthony the united nations is more than an organization it has an army and is just chomping at the bit to tax us. Please do not take the united nations lightly.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Distler, how is it NOT an American orginization? We pay most of the tab, give most of the troops, own all the property.

    Furthermore, The U.N. may not be American, but Montana is. And the people of Montana do not have to subjugate themselves to the tyrants across the sea.

  5. Prester John Says:

    I have no love of the UN, see it as a bastion of anti-Americanism, and would just as soon see its HQ located somewhere else, but where exactly is this UN army located and how big is it?

  6. globalist_elitist Says:

    I’m fine with the U.N. flag ban – on government property.

    Now can we formally ban the flying of the terrorist/white supremacist/anticaptialist Confederate flag on government property too?

    At least the U.N. never enslaved an entire race of people or literally tried to abolish our country.

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk. GE, you can call the flag White Supremacist, because some people believe the Civil War was over slavery.
    Anticapitalist? The Confederacy was as close to your utopia as possible. It had no income tax, no tarriffs.
    Terrorists? Umm, the North was the army that perpetrated a massive war on the civilian population.

  8. Doctor Paul Wayne Snyder, PhD Says:

    I have no love of the UN, see it as a bastion of anti-Americanism, and would just as soon see its HQ located somewhere else, but where exactly is this UN army [and black helicopters?] located and how big is it?

    And reformist college student Tony Distler of Pennsylvania is on the right track. The regilious right marginalizes itself with self appointed marginal issues.

    We at Citizens For A Better Veterans Home are dismayed with flag burning, especially when the protesters could merely fly the target banner up side down. Hoever, we would rather officials pledge allegiance to the Constitlution with their hand on the Bible than pledge allegiance to the Bible with their hand on the Constitution.

  9. matt Says:

    Wait, wouldn’t the UN flag be a racist symbol as well, what with the thousands of african women raped and tortured by UN ‘peacekeepers’ from europe?

    When I saw the headline, I thought this was a ban on private citizens posessing the filthy thing. I was against that, just because it’s a free speech issue, but when I found out it was just a ban on flying the flag on state gov’t property, it made a lot more sense.

    Also, to those who say this is merely symbolic: you’re both right and wrong. It’s symbolic, of course, but symbolic gestures are a big deal. The british certainly remember Ghandi’s symbolic march to the sea to make salt.

  10. Chris Says:

    I don’t know why my comments haven’t been posting. Here it is again:

    The Confederacy was as close to your utopia as possible.

    With just one ittsy bittsy little exception: the Confederate States of America believed an entire race of humans to be property.

    because some people believe the Civil War was over slavery.

    Actually, most people correctly believe the Civil War resulted directly from the issue of slavery. Even the CSA’s Vice President stated that the “cornerstone” of the new government “rested upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

  11. Anthony Distler Says:

    I don’t have a lot of love for the UN, either. And if you want to ban the flag being flown on government property, then fine. But the bill states that all laws of the United Nations are not valid in Montana, meaning, as Representative Campbell stated, that a war criminal can seek asylum within Montana and not have to worry about international extradition orders.

    Having no respect for the United Nations is one thing. But Rick Jore’s wish for a Confederation-like power of state laws to overrule federal and even international laws is going a little too far.

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    The Civil War was a war of capitalism vs. fuedal agrarianism. The South was not my Utopia; it was yours. Free-market economists were the enemies of the South. Read your economic history.

    Trent, you really don’t understand capitalism. I’ve been there. That’s why I was a Green! Capitalism is the only path to prosperity, the only path to true racial equality. Slavery is entirely incompatible with capitalism.

  13. Andy Says:

    globalist_elitist Says:

    “March 23rd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
    I’m fine with the U.N. flag ban – on government property.”

    I’m not suprised about this since you are a socialist idiot who PRETENDS to be an anarchist. REAL anarchists are vehemently opposed to the United Nations.

    “Now can we formally ban the flying of the terrorist/white supremacist/anticaptialist Confederate flag on government property too?”

    The Confederate States of America was actually better than the United Nations. You are probably too blinded to see this but it is true. And no, I do NOT condone the enslavement of blacks or anyone else, I’m just pointing out that what the United Nations wants is worse than anything the CSA ever did or dreamed of doing, and also that the CSA had a lot of good points and was not just about keeping blacks as slaves. In fact, there is evidence that chattel slavery of blacks would have eventually ended under the CSA.

    “At least the U.N. never enslaved an entire race of people or literally tried to abolish our country.”

    The United Nations wants to enslave the whole planet. They are for global gun control, global taxation, and forced population control (I wish that they would start their population control program by killing themselves).

  14. Andy Says:

    “Anticapitalist? The Confederacy was as close to your utopia as possible. It had no income tax, no tarriffs.”

    Yeah, UA/GE is such an ignorant fool. The primary grievance that the CSA had with the Union was over tarriffs. The North wanted high protectionist tarriffs and the South wanted free trade. Lincoln was a mercantilist (unlike Ron Paul who UA/GE falsely accuses of this) who wanted high tarriffs to protect Northern manufacturing interests. The South saw this as price gouging.

    Yes, the CSA did have slavery, but keep in mind that at that time there were still slaves states in the Union as well, and these slaves in the Union did not get freed until after the Civil War was over. Also, keep in mind that the North had a lot more immigrants – particularly poor immigrants, mostly from Ireland – who worked cheap and who could do the jobs that slaves did.

  15. Andy Says:

    “Anticapitalist? The Confederacy was as close to your utopia as possible. It had no income tax, no tarriffs.”

    UA/GE has said in the past that he supports taxation, which means that he was never a real anarchist. He’s just a confused, leftist fool.

  16. Andy Says:

    “When I saw the headline, I thought this was a ban on private citizens posessing the filthy thing. I was against that, just because it’s a free speech issue, but when I found out it was just a ban on flying the flag on state gov’t property, it made a lot more sense.”

    I agree.

  17. Andy Says:

    “Trent, you really don’t understand capitalism. I’ve been there. That’s why I was a Green! Capitalism is the only path to prosperity, the only path to true racial equality. Slavery is entirely incompatible with capitalism.”

    You understand capatilism so well that you support the socialist United Nations. BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  18. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy – Lincoln was a mercantalist. There were anticapitalist elements in the crony capitalism of the North at that time. But the South was clearly not a capitalist regime, considering that you can’t have free markets when people are enslaved. Capitalism recognizes no race, no religion, no value beyond that which the market values. Slavery is inefficient – much more so than the admittedly misguided (and corrupt) tariffs of the North.

    Yes, I support taxation. Never was an anarchist. Always been a capitalist. And I also dwell in the world we call reality where government exists, should exist, and needs to be funded. I say fund it in the least instusive, least destructive manner possible, and that is why I support the Forbes Flat Tax.

    Some leftist I am.

  19. globalist_elitist Says:

    Where do I say I support the U.N.? I said I supported Jore’s bill. Reading is fundamental.

  20. Andy Says:

    “The Civil War was a war of capitalism vs. fuedal agrarianism.”

    The North was NOT for free market capitalism. They were for big government and mercantilism. Not that the South was some kind of perfect utopia either, just putting things in proper perspective.

  21. Andy Says:

    Abraham Lincoln is one of the biggest frauds in American history. He didn’t really give a damn about blacks and was in fact a racist himself.

    Racist Quote by Abe Lincoln (Happy Black History Month!)
    February 19th, 2007

    Abraham Lincoln Quote

    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

    by:

    Abraham Lincoln
    (1809-1865) 16th US President
    Source:

    Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
    (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

  22. Andy Says:

    The American Lenin
    by L. Neil Smith
    lneil@lneilsmith.org

    It’s harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative—given the former category’s increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter’s prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment—but it’s still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.

    Just ask about either Amendment.

    If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country’s Founding Fathers, what you’ve got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America’s last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.

    But if—and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people—you’d like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.

    Suppose a woman—with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated—desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he’d already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she’d complained about his stealing.

    Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn’t a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?

    History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force—“sell to us at our price or pay a fine that’ll put you out of business”—for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That’s what a tariff’s all about. In support of this “noble principle”, when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country’s foreign wars—before or afterward—rolled into one.

    Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent—indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims—and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south—where he had no effective jurisdiction—while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he’d have done that, instead.

    The fact is, Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over—income taxation and military conscription to which newly “freed” blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery—a dubious, “politically correct” assertion with no historical evidence to back it up—then clearly, slavery won.

    Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight “knock on the door”, illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, “disappearing” thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression—in the south, it lasted half a century—he didn’t have to live through, himself.

    In the end, Lincoln didn’t unite this country—that can’t be done by force—he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he’d have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.

    If libertarians ran things, they’d melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.

    Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they’d like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars—more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime—and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional “technicalities” like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world’s largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.

    The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else’s, Abraham Lincoln’s career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents—rather than mere hundreds of thousands—to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America’s Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.

    ————————————————————————————————————————
    L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist.

    Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

  23. globalist_elitist Says:

    The North was for industrialized crony capitalism. The South was for fuedal-agrarian slaveocracy.

    Agree?

    Not that it matters, but I think that Lincoln’s views on race changed during the course of the war, particularly after blacks fought for the Union.

    Lincon’s views on trade, however, were very similar to the CP’s. So they should not view him with the disdain that they do.

  24. Andy Says:

    Lincoln’s Tariff War
    By Thomas DiLorenzo
    Posted on 5/6/2002

    When Charles Adams published his book For Good and Evil, a world history of taxation, the most controversial chapter by far was the one on whether or not tariffs caused the American War between the States. That chapter generated so much discussion and debate that Adams’s publisher urged him to turn it into an entire book, which he did, in the form of When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.

    Many of the reviewers of this second book, so confident were they that slavery was the one and only possible reason for both Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency and the war itself, excoriated Adams for his analysis that the tariff issue was a major cause of the war. (Adams recently told me in an email that after one presentation to a New York City audience, he felt lucky that “no one brought a rope.”)

    My book, The Real Lincoln, has received much the same response with regard to the tariff issue. But there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and 2) the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln’s invasion, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

    A very important article that documents in great detail the role of protectionism in Lincoln’s ascendancy to the presidency is Columbia University historian Reinhard H. Luthin’s “Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff,” published in the July 1944 issue of The American Historical Review. As I document in The Real Lincoln, the sixteenth president was one of the most ardent protectionists in American politics during the first half of the nineteenth century and had established a long record of supporting protectionism and protectionist candidates in the Whig Party.

    In 1860, Pennsylvania was the acknowledged key to success in the presidential election. It had the second highest number of electoral votes, and Pennsylvania Republicans let it be known that any candidate who wanted the state’s electoral votes must sign on to a high protectionist tariff to benefit the state’s steel and other manufacturing industries. As Luthin writes, the Morrill tariff bill itself “was sponsored by the Republicans in order to attract votes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.”

    The most influential newspaper in Illinois at the time was the Chicago Press and Tribune under the editorship of Joseph Medill, who immediately recognized that favorite son Lincoln had just the protectionist credentials that the Pennsylvanians wanted. He editorialized that Lincoln “was an old Clay Whig, is right on the tariff and he is exactly right on all other issues. Is there any man who could suit Pennsylvania better?”

    At the same time, a relative of Lincoln’s by marriage, a Dr. Edward Wallace of Pennsylvania, sounded Lincoln out on the tariff by communicating to Lincoln through his brother, William Wallace. On October 11, 1859, Lincoln wrote Dr. Edward Wallace: “My dear Sir: [Y]our brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff view, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views” (emphasis added). Lincoln was establishing his bona fides as an ardent protectionist.

    At the Republican National Convention in Chicago, the protectionist tariff was a key plank. As Luthin writes, when the protectionist tariff plank was voted in, “The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium.” Lincoln received “the support of almost the entire Pennsylvania delegation” writes Luthin, “partly through the efforts of doctrinaire protectionists such as Morton McMichael . . . publisher of Philadelphia’s bible of protectionism, the North American newspaper.”

    Returning victorious to his home of Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln attended a Republican Party rally that included “an immense wagon” bearing a gigantic sign reading “Protection for Home Industry.” Lincoln’s (and the Republican Party’s) economic guru, Pennsylvania steel industry publicist/lobbyist Henry C. Carey, declared that without a high protectionist tariff, “Mr. Lincoln’s administration will be dead before the day of inauguration.”

    The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.

    So, Lincoln owed everything—his nomination and election—to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.

    At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: “The power confided in me,” he said, “will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against, or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).

    “We are going to make tax slaves out of you,” Lincoln was effectively saying, “and if you resist, there will be an invasion.” That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.

    With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.

    But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done, and was willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000 Americans to prove his point. Lincoln’s economic guru, Henry C. Carey, was quite prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in mid-1860 that “Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff” (p. 614, “Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff”).

    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Thomas DiLorenzo is a professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Baltimore, and is senior fellow of the Mises Institute. See his Mises.org Articles Achive, and send him MAIL. Also, listen to Dr. DiLorenzo’s recent book discussion on The Real Lincoln (in MP3 format).

  25. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy just hates America. He idealizes a pre-Civil-War, fuedal-agrarian age in which women couldn’t vote, blacks were property, and the economy was stagnant. He hates liberal democracy and pro-growth capitalism.

    This is not to discount or ignore some of the valid criticisms cited in L. Neil Smith’s essay. But just like the “blame America first” left, the hardcore right’s criticisms of America go too far.

    If the Libertarian Party is to be the party of people who think like Andy, I have news for you – it isn’t ever going to win a single election. Agree or disagree?

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hey, I’m too busy to read right-wing propaganda. I recognize Lincoln’s flaws as a CP-style protectionist. What are you trying to prove?

  27. globalist_elitist Says:

    “My name is Andy and I love my country. What I do not love is our economic system. We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to a system of specie-currency, because it served us so well in the past. Our country really started going the wrong way in 1913, didn’t it? Furthermore, we need to do away with the Civil Rights Act. It is a gross infringement on the rights of racists. Next, we need to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish all taxation. Maybe we can replace the income tax with a 30% sales tax – that, in conjuction with gold money, will be a great boost to the economy! Finally, we need to recognize three important things: ‘Great presidents’ like FDR and Lincoln were actually evil men. The South were the good guys in the Civil War. Oh yeah, and 9/11 was an inside job. VOTE LIBERTARIAN!”

  28. Joe Murphy Says:

    Anthony says:
    “But the bill states that all laws of the United Nations are not valid in Montana, meaning, as Representative Campbell stated, that a war criminal can seek asylum within Montana and not have to worry about international extradition orders”.

    Yes that means anyone could seek asylum in Montana for any reason. That does not however mean that Montana would take everyone. Montana would have the right to accept or deny entry into their state.

    Anthony says:
    “Having no respect for the United Nations is one thing. But Rick Jore’s wish for a Confederation-like power of state laws to overrule federal and even international laws is going a little too far”.

    Our nation was set up as a constitutional republic for that very reason. So that states would not have laws forced on them by foreign powers. The constitution gives the federal govt. limited and defined powers the rest being left up to the states and people respectively. So in my opinion Rick Jore is simply trying to enforce the 10 admendment.

    International law and overreaching federal laws have no more power than what we give them. We have a written constitution and must abide by it or we will be forced to live by the whims of man.

  29. Trent Hill Says:

    Distler, im also going to disagree with you. Jore’s bill states what most Libertarians believe, that some federal law should not supercede laws made by the people who actually live on the land that the laws affect.

    GE/UA, Lincoln is hated by the CP because he had a BLATANT disregard for the Constitution. While he was a protectionist, he also disregarded the Constitution.
    Also, you saying Lincoln “changed his mind” about slavery shows how naive you really are. Considering his Emancipation Proclamation freed exactly ZERO slaves, he doesn’t come off as a strong abolitionist now does he? In fact, in the Emancipation Proclamation, the areas of southern Louisiana, northern Virginia, and Tennessee are exempt. Why? Because they were Union held territory. Lincoln was making a strategic decision. He got the abolitionists behind him, sealed his legacy as a “great” president, and created fear of rebellion at home for the Southern Fighters.
    As for the civil war being about slavery. Only the rich aristocracy owned slaves…probably 2% of the population of soldiers. So you think the other 98% were risking their lives so the rich fellas could keep their negros? Right. It was about states’ rights and free trade.
    Lastly the slave issue, in 5-10 years, John Deere would have made slavery inefficient. UNDER A CAPITALIST SYSTEM the Machinery for picking cotton would have become more productive than slavery. Obviously blacks still would not have had the right to vote, but they may have gotten it sooner if it werent for the turmoil caused by the Civil War.

  30. Anthony Distler Says:

    Ok, I’ll get behind this. But let me ask the two of you. Do you believe that the federal government should make laws banning abortion and gay marriage, even though some states allow for both?

  31. Andy Says:

    “In fact, in the Emancipation Proclamation, the areas of southern Louisiana, northern Virginia, and Tennessee are exempt.”

    Don’t forget about the slaves that were held in Maryland, West Virginia, Missouri, and, Kentucky, all slaves states that were in the Union. The Emancipation Proclimation had no effect on the slaves held in these states.

  32. Darcy Richardson Says:

    “Don’t forget about the slaves that were held in Maryland, West Virginia, Missouri, and, Kentucky, all slaves states that were in the Union. The Emancipation Proclimation had no effect on the slaves held in these states.”

    That’s a really good point. Actually, this is a pretty interesting discussion. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, as Andy correctly noted, didn’t free the slaves in the border states, many of whom were held in bondage until the end of the war. In fact, there was a famous story about a slave in Maryland who wanted to visit her relatives on the state’s Eastern Shore, but wasn’t permitted to do so by her owner. She actually wrote to Lincoln in August 1864 — almost two years after the President signed the Proclamation — asking him to clarify her status.

    One other quick point. In the above article, Thomas Di Lorenzo described Lincoln as “a failed one-term congressman.” Failed? That’s certainly debatable, but it’s important to remember that Lincoln wasn’t rejected by the voters in his district. Despite his relatively unpopular opposition to the Mexican War, Lincoln probably would have won a second term in 1848 — and probably several terms after that — but the Whig Party in Illinois’ seventh congressional district had a longstanding, if not peculiar, policy of rotating candidates every two years. In other words, no Whig in his district could run for Congress a second time. Lincoln, in fact, had replaced Edward D. Baker, an immensely popular 35-year-old one-term Whig congressman, in 1846. Like Lincoln two years later, Baker had been prohibited by party rules from seeking a second term on the Whig ticket from that district. Strange, but true.

  33. Joe Murphy Says:

    Hi Anthony,
    No the federal govt. does not have jurisdiction. These are the laws that are to be left to the states and people respectively. The feds should not rule on them either for or against. The state and US constitutions must be in alliance as far as not infringing on someone elses rights. The constitution was written for the govt. so that it would not overstep its authority, Thats why I believe it should be left to the states. The bill of rights were written so that the federal govt. knew the basic rights of man. Those were not all the rights just some of them. Basically the constitution was written to keep govt. in its place and let people live free.

    I must say I am happy to see younger people like yourself involved in the process and able to converse about topics without all the drama. I checked out your profile and see you are from PA. Where is your town?. I’m just outside of Pittsburgh.

  34. Anthony Distler Says:

    I’m from St. Marys, in Elk County. As was once described on DailyKos.com, Elk County is the Democratic country smack dab in the center of the Republican “”T”. If that STILL is confusing, then I’ll just tell you that I’m in the 5th District. Pretty rural up here.

  35. globalist_elitist Says:

    RE: Lincoln’s opposition to the Mexican-American War. What do the constitutionalists say about that?

  36. Trent Hill Says:

    Distler,

    As far as Gay Marriage, I couldnt give less of a crap what Massachusetts does about gay marriage. As long as my state has the sovereignty it once had under the Constitution, I dont care. As long as the States’ laws had precedent, then it would almost be as if FRANCE had allowed gay marriage. Which I neither care, nor know about. Thats not to say I dont think Massachusetts SHOULD ban gay marriage, I do. I just dont particularly care, as long as my state doesnt have to recognize it.
    Right now, my state DOES have to recognize it.

    As for Abortion, that is different. Whereas the U.N. treaty is a matter of sovereignty and basic governance, Abortion is a human rights violation (in the eyes of pro-lifers, im not turing this into an abortion arguement). For the sake of this debate, A human rights violation should be upheld by the federal government because of obligation to “protect the populace”. Whereas laws that suppress and tax the people of (pick a state) should be able to be “nullified”

    See: Jefferson’s theory of Nullification

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    GE, The Constitution Party doesn’t have an official stance on it. Personally, i’d say “ohk.” I’d say that was probably one area where Lincoln was right. Everything i’ve read about the Mexican-American says it was unjust.

    Then again, this was at a time when nations were still jockeying for land at a constant rate, and casualties were very low.

  38. globalist_elitist Says:

    My point is this: The Mexican-American War was unconstitutional and immoral. It was imperialistic; an unprincipled land-grab, as Lincoln called it. But are we better off for it now? The same can be said for the Civil War. What does that mean? I don’t know, but it’s food for thought.

  39. globalist_elitist Says:

    I agree with Trent Hill here. Abortion is either an issue of a woman owning her own body (pro-choice) or the issue of an unborn child being killed (pro-life). Either way, it is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a state’s right issue. A state cannot make a law violating a woman’s ownership of her own body, nor condoning the “murder” of a child. This is why Ron Paul and others like him are wrong on this issue no matter if you’re pro-life or pro-choice.

    As for gay marriage – I say it’s the same thing. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. So long as hererosexual marriage is recognized, then rights are being denied to same-sex couples who do not have access to the same legal benefits. This is where Trent is wrong. It cannot be a “state’s issue.” Unfortunately for the hard right, states no longer have the legal authority to discriminate against classes of citizens or to deny equal protection and access to all rights and privelages.

  40. Jay Matthews Says:

    Paul’s stance on abortion comes from the 9th and 10th amendments. If you don’t like the amendments then your beef is with their creators. Don’t fault Paul for honoring the constitution.

    9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”

  41. globalist_elitist Says:

    And the Supreme Court has ruled that women have a right to abortions. You can’t use the SC in your whackjob rants against the IRS (based on decisions from 1920) and then ignore them when it comes to abortion (1973).

  42. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    March 24th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
    I agree with Trent Hill here. Abortion is either an issue of a woman owning her own body (pro-choice) or the issue of an unborn child being killed (pro-life). Either way, it is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a state’s right issue. A state cannot make a law violating a woman’s ownership of her own body, nor condoning the “murder” of a child. This is why Ron Paul and others like him are wrong on this issue no matter if you’re pro-life or pro-choice.”

    It depends on if Ron Paul is correct that life begins at conception. If he is correct, then that means that abortion is murder.

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    March 24th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
    And the Supreme Court has ruled that women have a right to abortions. You can’t use the SC in your whackjob rants against the IRS (based on decisions from 1920) and then ignore them when it comes to abortion (1973).”

    The Supreme Court also once ruled that blacks were property and that slaves who escaped to non-slave states had to be returned. The Supreme Court has ruled that it’s OK for the government to confiscate property through eminent domain and to hand that property over to corporations. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can arrest people who use marijuana for medicinal reasons in states where medicinal use of marijuana has been deemed legal.

    Not every Supreme Court decision is good. If the Supreme Court comes down on the the side of individual liberty it is good, if it comes down on the side of squashing individual liberty it is bad. Supreme Court justices and judges in general for that matter are not gods. The Constitution says that Surpeme Court justices – as well as judges of inferior courts – can hold their offices only if they maintain good behaviour. If they come out with a decision that goes against the Constitution and Bill of Rights they are displaying bad behaviour and should be removed from office.

    I’ve heard some anti-abortion activists make the arguement that abortion violates the 5th amendment because the 5th amendment says that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” “Due process of law” means that a person has to be accused of a crime and given a fair trial. IF a fetus is to be regaurded as a person, then the Bill of Rights would have to apply to them, and under the Bill of Rights “no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” So IF a fetus is a person, the Supreme Court made a ruling that was in violation of the 5th amendment in regaurds to abortion, and therefore the judges who made this decision should have been removed from office for bad behaviour and the decision should be considered invalid.

    Of course the above rests on whether or not a fetus should be regaurded as a person and should have individual rights. There is no general concensus on this issue at this time. This is why I’d say that it is better to leave this issue to be decided on at the state level. In addition to this, IF abortion is murder, murder is a crime that is prosecuted at the state level, not the federal level.

    At one time blacks were not considered to be persons who had individual rights, so the Bill of Rights did not apply to them. Is such an injustice comparable to aborting fetuses? Some would say yes, but some would say no. It depends on whether or not life begins at conception and when one thinks that individual rights should start.

    Why is it “whackjob” to rants against the IRS? The IRS is an extortion agency. In addition to engaging in mass theft, they also operate outside of the boundries of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. When the Supreme Court ruled against the notion that American citizens who work within the 50 states have to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor they were defending individual freedom and were acting within the boundries set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so this was an example of Supreme Court justices displaying good behaviour.

    “As for gay marriage – I say it’s the same thing. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. So long as hererosexual marriage is recognized, then rights are being denied to same-sex couples who do not have access to the same legal benefits. This is where Trent is wrong. It cannot be a “state’s issue.” Unfortunately for the hard right, states no longer have the legal authority to discriminate against classes of citizens or to deny equal protection and access to all rights and privelages.”

    There shouldn’t be any “special rights” for people who are married. Why should married people be treated any differently than single people?

    I don’t give a rat’s ass if two gay people get together and want to come up with some type of ceremony and call themselves married. If this is what they want to do I say go for it. However, they do not have the right to force everyone else to accept them. Speaking for myself, as long as they aren’t harming anyone I don’t care what they do. There are other people out there who are highly offended by the very notion of gay marriage. Some of these people may own a business of some type and not want to do business with gay couples. This (although some would deem it to be politically incorrect and mean spirited) should be their right. However, under today’s screwed up legal system a gay couple could file a discrimination law suit against a private business that refused to do business with them.

    The REAL solution here is not to grant marriage licenses to gays, but rather to ABOLISH marriage licenses all together.

  43. Cody Quirk Says:

    I don’t give a rat’s ass if two gay people get together and want to come up with some type of ceremony and call themselves married. If this is what they want to do I say go for it. However, they do not have the right to force everyone else to accept them.

    =Same here. And I am 100% states-rightist on gay marriage. I’d love to see it banned in all 50 states, but instead of getting big brother involved, just have everybody get on the back of their own state government.

  44. Cody Quirk Says:

    As for abortion. I’d like to see a nationwide ban on general abortion, but I’d leave the matter of rape/incest up to the states, and it should be universal that if the mother’s life is threatened in any situation during pregnancy and there are severe complications that cannot allow the child or mother to live, then the mother’s life must be automatically saved. Anyone that thinks otherwise of the mother should go work for a abortion clinic.

    I should know of such situations, my sister-in-law had a tubal pregnancy before.

  45. Cody Quirk Says:

    But the only real way we’re going to end abortion is by chipping away at it one piece at a time. Through local ordinances against clinics, parential notification laws or even a state-ban on partial-birth abortion (infanticide). It cannot be done in one big swoop, but only by taking small steps to a goal that becomes more reachable after every step. That’s the right approch.
    The federal courts are almost too corrupt, presently, to overturn Roe V. Wade.

  46. Andy Says:

    “=Same here. And I am 100% states-rightist on gay marriage. I’d love to see it banned in all 50 states, but instead of getting big brother involved, just have everybody get on the back of their own state government.”

    You obviously do give a damn if gay people want to get married or else you wouldn’t want to see it banned in all 50 states.

    I think that they should be able to get married if they want to do this. However, I also don’t think that anyone should have to get state marriage licenses. State marriage licenses should be abolished in all 50 states. Marriage exsisted long before state marriage licenses exsisted.

    As for acceptance of gay marriage, that should be up to each individual as to whether or not this is something they want to accept. Those who are offended by it shouldn’t be forced to accept it, while others don’t care or even support it.

    This is a radical concept called freedom.

  47. Andy Says:

    “Cody Quirk Says:

    March 25th, 2007 at 5:19 am
    But the only real way we’re going to end abortion is by chipping away at it one piece at a time. Through local ordinances against clinics, parential notification laws or even a state-ban on partial-birth abortion (infanticide). It cannot be done in one big swoop, but only by taking small steps to a goal that becomes more reachable after every step. That’s the right approch.
    The federal courts are almost too corrupt, presently, to overturn Roe V. Wade.”

    If you really want to end abortion you need to work on changing the mindset of the culture towards abortion. Until the general concensus about abortion – as in a supermajority of the population – thinks of it as murder and as a wrong you will never accomplish anything.

  48. Cody Quirk Says:

    You obviously do give a damn if gay people want to get married or else you wouldn’t want to see it banned in all 50 states.

    =Yeah so? Yet if it could only get done in 48 or 45 states, then, well, better then nothing. I’m not a absolutionist, if I can’t have the whole cake, then I’ll accept a slice.

    As for acceptance of gay marriage, that should be up to each individual as to whether or not this is something they want to accept. Those who are offended by it shouldn’t be forced to accept it, while others don’t care or even support it.

    =If a state or local legislative body which represents the people, find gay marriage offensive as do the majority of the registered voters they represent, then it should be up to such legislative body to prohibit or regulate gay marriage in the state or local area.

    =Petitioning to do such by a certain amount of signatures in order to place such ordinances on the ballot is also acceptable.

    =This is a radical concept of ‘States Rights’.

  49. Cody Quirk Says:

    If you really want to end abortion you need to work on changing the mindset of the culture towards abortion. Until the general concensus about abortion – as in a supermajority of the population – thinks of it as murder and as a wrong you will never accomplish anything.

    = 3/4 of Americans currently support banning Partial-birth Abortion, the majority of Americans also favor better restrictions or regulation of abortion. Time and the progression of medical science and technology is already doing that to society, making Planned Parenthood’s arguments for abortion more archaic and annoyingly constant like a broken record. That aspect is already covered.

    =So we must presently concentrate on governmant and politics to stop Roe V. Wade in any way, including passing legislation on health care and other subjects that would have a indirect, but influencial effect on abortion.

    Look at the state of Mississippi, how is their abortion record compaired to 20 years ago? Ordinances have already been passed that slows down the unborn murder rate. What about legislation that became federal law years ago that was inspired by the Lacey Peterson murder trial?
    There are various examples of laws ordinances or actions that are starting to have a effect on the abortion rate. We just need to keep climbing the ladder and more will get done.

  50. Anthony Distler Says:

    “=This is a radical concept of ‘States Rights’.”

    That’s what Strom Thurmond said.

  51. Andy Says:

    “=Yeah so? Yet if it could only get done in 48 or 45 states, then, well, better then nothing. I’m not a absolutionist, if I can’t have the whole cake, then I’ll accept a slice.”

    Why is it any of your business what people do in their personal lives? Gays entering into private relationships that they want to call a marriage does not inflict violence upon you, nor does it steal from you, nor does it destroy your property. Are you just a busy body that likes to stick their nose in other people’s business?

    If you don’t want to do business or associate with gays and/or gay couples, that should be your right, but this does not mean that you’ve got the right to prevent gays from entering into contracts with eachother or doing business or associating with others.

    “=If a state or local legislative body which represents the people, find gay marriage offensive as do the majority of the registered voters they represent, then it should be up to such legislative body to prohibit or regulate gay marriage in the state or local area.”

    The government should not be involved in granting marriage licenses in the first place. Why should the government be able to dictate who can marry who?

    The stated purpose of our government is only to protect life, liberty, and property against forms of coercive violence, theft, and destruction. Anything the government does beyond this narrow scope is tyrannical.

    “=Petitioning to do such by a certain amount of signatures in order to place such ordinances on the ballot is also acceptable.”

    I consider such an initiative petition to be unacceptable because it violates individual rights and if I were a judge I’d throw it out.

    This would be no different than if somebody started up an initiative petition to ban the private ownership of guns. If I were a judge I would throw this petition out as well because I don’t give a damn how many signatures you get on it, you’ve got no right to take people’s guns away.

    Just as you’ve got no right to take people’s guns away, you’ve also got no right to tell people who they can marry.

    “=This is a radical concept of ‘States Rights’.”

    Individual rights are superior to “States Rights”.

  52. Cody Quirk Says:

    Why is it any of your business what people do in their personal lives? Gays entering into private relationships that they want to call a marriage does not inflict violence upon you, nor does it steal from you, nor does it destroy your property. Are you just a busy body that likes to stick their nose in other people’s business?

    =Why is it that some gays and homosexuals want to have their beliefs and lifestyle forced upon children in public schools or the people, and have more previleges and benifits then hetrosexual people? Especially when it comes to a sacred institution as marriage? I really don’t care what gays do in the bedroom or at their clubs, and if they want to have a ‘marriage’ at a Unitarian or a UCC Church, that’s fine by me, even though the state or local government should not be forced to recognize their ‘marriage’. And the federal government really needs to stay out of the issue of marriage too.

    but this does not mean that you’ve got the right to prevent gays from entering into contracts with eachother or doing business or associating with others.

    =Fine, but that doesn’t mean a state of local governmental institution should recognize such ‘contracts’ or ‘business deals’, or even give any taxpayer funding for such contracts or deals.

    The government should not be involved in granting marriage licenses in the first place.

    =Ok, then why should they recognize gay marriages, period? Why can’t gay marriages be only recognized by each partner and their church or religious denomination instead of getting government involved? That would be resonable.

    The stated purpose of our government is only to protect life, liberty, and property against forms of coercive violence, theft, and destruction. Anything the government does beyond this narrow scope is tyrannical.

    =No, the states can be allowed to do broder things- it’s called the 10th Amendment. It’s really the federal that has the major limitations.

    I consider such an initiative petition to be unacceptable because it violates individual rights and if I were a judge I’d throw it out.

    =Then you’re suppresing the people’s right to vote. Especially on a matter that’s very constitutional

    This would be no different than if somebody started up an initiative petition to ban the private ownership of guns.

    =Nope, the Second Amendment clearly states that the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed- no ‘ifs’ ‘ands’ or ‘buts’ this one of the few things that even state or local governments cannot interfere in. Such a petition is unconstitutional. However the issue of marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. The only thing homosexuals have going for them are the 1st and 14th Amendments. But the 14th doesn’t dictate marriage at all.

    Just as you’ve got no right to take people’s guns away, you’ve also got no right to tell people who they can marry.

    =Wrong.

    Individual rights are superior to “States Rights”.

    =Not in the institution of marriage. Or putting minority rights above majority rights.

  53. Cody Quirk Says:

    ‘States Rights’ is also something Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers said too.

  54. Anthony Distler Says:

    Who says that homosexuals are forcing their views upon other people. They want equal rights. I’m sorry if your homophobia is getting in the way of that.

  55. Trent Hill Says:

    Distler,

    I am against gay marriage, but im not a homophobe. I have two gay friends (no,they aren’t dating), and a former girlfriend of mine is a lesbian (My friends like to say I turned her lesbian). I don’t have to like THEIR SEXUAL STATUS to like THEM. I like them just fine, but they know how I feel about their sexual status. Furthermore, the Gay community is not asking for equal treatment, they are asking to defile the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is a holy union between man and woman. Even the homosexuals of Greece and Rome knew better than to call their relationships marriages. I don’t care what they call it. They can call it “yippee-who” and get all the same benefits as me and my wife. But they cant call it marriage.
    Truth be told, I agree more with Andy (i think it was him) in that the government should step out of ALL marraige liscencing.

  56. Eric Cartman Donfascist Says:

    It’s OK, I understand.

    Some of my best friends are black, and I’ve dated a bunch of Mexican chicks. In fact I’m kind of like the Don Juan of Mexico. A veritable legend. They call me “El Yanqui con Grande Pepe.” I’m famous throughout Mexico. Just ask any Mexican woman, and she’s likely to blush at the mere mention of my name.

  57. Anthony Distler Says:

    I’m not saying everyone who’s against gay marriage is homophibic. But Cody wouldn’t even do business with someone who’s gay. That’s a little homophobic.

    And what sancity is left in marriage? You want to defend the sancity of marriage? Make divorce illegal.

  58. Trent Hill Says:

    It isnt NECCESARILY homophobic. It could be though.

  59. Cody Quirk Says:

    Who says that homosexuals are forcing their views upon other people. They want equal rights.

    =Let me see, in California they wnat children from kindergarden to high school to learn about gays, lesbians, and transgender people in American History (hasn’t been signed into law yet). Even in the bay area, a girl got suspended because she simply said the phrase ‘that’s so gay’ and was considered inappropriate speech under her school policy, never mind she said it in response to a kid making fun of her being LDS.

    Even through Prop. 22 was passed by a majority here, our legislature is trying to override it and make it legal in California.

    Besides California, several years ago, Janine Hansen was physically assaulted by a homosexual when she was trying to collect petition signatures. Suffering injuries in her hands.

    There are many examples, but the issue is a lot of gays don’t want equal rights, they want MORE rights then others.

  60. Cody Quirk Says:

    And I happen to have a in-law that’s a lesbian and my wife’s cousin is bi-sexual. yet I don’t see them any different then a human being and even if I have my religious views on homosexually I don’t go shoving it down their throuts.

    I’m not homophobic, I’m homonauseoustic. Most homophobes seem to be closet gay themselves. Yet I’m comfortablw with my sexuality and I’m a practical hetrosexual. Just sick and tired of gays and lesbians acting like they always don’t have it good enough, or enough privileges in society.

  61. Anthony Distler Says:

    Anybody physically assulting anyone is wrong, despite who it is or their message. I can not defend that action. I can, however, state that most homosexuals just want to stop being treated as if their are second class citizens and be given some equal treatment under he law.

    California is quite the oddity when it comes to laws passed. You can’t smoke anywhere…unless it’s pot. But I know that when New Jersey granted same-sex civil unions, homosexuals celebrated peacefully.

    What I’m saying is look beyond your narrow-minded view of homosexuals. You really stood up for the Mormons in one post, even though it wasn’t the most popular thing to do. Maybe do a little research on homosexuality and see how they really are. You’d be suprised.

  62. Cody Quirk Says:

    And what sancity is left in marriage? You want to defend the sancity of marriage? Make divorce illegal.

    =No, only allow it in cases of abuse or adultery, otherwise you’re stuck for life with your spouse.

  63. globalist_elitist Says:

    Would you force the couple to cohabitate?

  64. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    Dunno bout GE. But I wont force ANYONE to cohabitate. I wouldnt outlaw divorce either (for ANY case).

  65. globalist_elitist Says:

    From a philosophical standpoint, I would obviously agree that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. But that isn’t going to happen. It is even less likely than abolishing income tax or bombing the Federal Reserve, etc. It just isn’t going to happen – at least not in the next 50 years. Why? Because a lot of statist-minded old folks would say “So what now, our marriage isn’t real?” Not realizing that marriages should be between them and their (optional) God(s), not the state. This generation before us is completely and totally dominated by statist thinking.

    Secondly, I DO support state governments being in the “civil unions” business – i.e. non-religious “marriage.” It’s an ease of contracting issue – it standardizes and simplifies people’s contractual obligations to one another without them needing to spend $300 on a lawyer.

    Thirdly, I do not care if gay marriage is called “gay marriage” by the state, and I think anyone who really cares is guilty of “trying to impose” their morals on others. Gay-rights leaders should “settle” for civil unions, especially considering that government should not be involved in marriage to begin with. IT IS THE RIGHTS AND PRIVELAGES that are important, not the name.

  66. Andy Says:

    “=Let me see, in California they wnat children from kindergarden to high school to learn about gays, lesbians, and transgender people in American History (hasn’t been signed into law yet). Even in the bay area, a girl got suspended because she simply said the phrase ‘that’s so gay’ and was considered inappropriate speech under her school policy, never mind she said it in response to a kid making fun of her being LDS.”

    This is more a problem of the exsistance of government schools. Just as government should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses, government should also not be in the education business.

    The real solution here is to send your kids to the school of your choice or to home school them.

  67. Andy Says:

    “=Why is it that some gays and homosexuals want to have their beliefs and lifestyle forced upon children in public schools or the people, and have more previleges and benifits then hetrosexual people? Especially when it comes to a sacred institution as marriage? I really don’t care what gays do in the bedroom or at their clubs, and if they want to have a ‘marriage’ at a Unitarian or a UCC Church, that’s fine by me, even though the state or local government should not be forced to recognize their ‘marriage’. And the federal government really needs to stay out of the issue of marriage too.”

    I don’t think that anyone should force their beliefs or lifestyles on others. This applies to gays just as much as it applies to religious extremists just as it applies to everyone else.

    “=Fine, but that doesn’t mean a state of local governmental institution should recognize such ‘contracts’ or ‘business deals’, or even give any taxpayer funding for such contracts or deals.”

    If two individuals voluntarily agree to contract, and if government is to exsist, than the government should enforce the terms of that contract. The only case that this would apply to marriage is in the case of divorce when splitting up jointly owned property.

    Let’s say that two NON-gay people of the same sex enter into some form of contract together. It could be a business contract or it could be a roommate contract or it could be something else. Then let’s say that one of the people in the contract desides that they want out, or lets say that one of the people in the contract does something that violates the terms of that contract. Since we have a government, the government is SUPPOSED to enforce the terms of that contract. Keep in mind that our right to enter into voluntary contracts is unlimited. So under our present system the government would have to enforce the terms of that contract.

    You are saying that gays who enter into marriage contracts should NOT have the terms of their contracts enforced. Why? This is BLATANT discrimination. Just because you don’t like a particular group it does not mean that this group shouldn’t have the same rights that you have, and that includes the right to contract and to have contracts enforced.

    Since you don’t believe that gays should have the right to contract or to have their contracts enforced what other rights do you think that gays shouldn’t have? Do you believe that they should not be able to own guns? Do you believe that they should not have free speech? Do you believe that they should not be protected against unreasonable searches and siezures?

    “=Ok, then why should they recognize gay marriages, period? Why can’t gay marriages be only recognized by each partner and their church or religious denomination instead of getting government involved? That would be resonable.”

    WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO GET A GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE LICENSE? NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO GET ONE, WHETHER THEY ARE GAY OR STRAIGHT!

    The only role for government would be to enforce the terms of any contract that may be involved in a marriage, if even this.

    If we had a purist libertarian society there wouldn’t even be a government so the entire issue would be a moot point.

    “=No, the states can be allowed to do broder things- it’s called the 10th Amendment. It’s really the federal that has the major limitations.”

    Have you ever read any of the state constitutions? I’ve read several of them and the ones that I’ve read have similiar protections of individual rights as the federal constitution, in fact, some of them actually go further in protecting individual rights than the federal constitution.

    WHY SHOULD ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, BE IT LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL, VIOLATE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

    You act as though it is OK to violate individual rights if it is done at the state level, even if it violates the state constitution. State and local governments have NO business violating indivdual rights!

    “=Then you’re suppresing the people’s right to vote. Especially on a matter that’s very constitutional.”

    People do NOT have the right to vote to take away other people’s rights! We are NOT a pure democracy, we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. In our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC a majority does NOT have the right to take away the rights of a minority through voting.

    I’m all for citizens initiative & referendum, however, the initiative & referendum MUST BE IN ALIGNEMENT WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Just as I believe that the legislatures should not pass bills that violate individual rights I also believe that initiative & referendum should not violate individual rights.

    “=Nope, the Second Amendment clearly states that the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed- no ‘ifs’ ‘ands’ or ‘buts’ this one of the few things that even state or local governments cannot interfere in. Such a petition is unconstitutional. However the issue of marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. The only thing homosexuals have going for them are the 1st and 14th Amendments. But the 14th doesn’t dictate marriage at all.”

    The first amendment PROHIBITS the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. A religion is a set of beliefs. It is your belief that homosexuals should not be able to enter into marriages. You are trying to get laws passed that FORCE your beliefs onto others. Therefore you are establishing your religion as the state religion and you are forcing it on others at the point of a gun. This is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.

    If you don’t believe that gays should marry, then fine, don’t marry a man. Guess what, I don’t believe in marrying men either, however, unlike you I don’t believe that I’ve got the right to force my tastes or preferences on others. Why can’t you just MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LIVE AND LET LIVE?

    Another point here is that it would be impossible for every right that people have to be listed in a Constitution. You’ve got a right to eat what you want. You got a right to sleep when you want. You’ve got a right to chose your occupation. You’ve got a right to hop on one foot. Just because a right isn’t specifically listed it doesn’t mean that that right does not exsist. The Constitution is meant to RESTRAIN government. The powers GRANTED to government are few and are SPECIFICALLY listed. Anything that is not specifically listed as being a power granted to government is left to the people. You’ll probably bring up that the 10th amendment leaves things not specifically enumerated to the States or to the people, however, keep in mind that the various state constitution place LIMITS on state power. Every state constitution that I’ve ever looked at goes pretty far in protecting individual freedom.

    “=Not in the institution of marriage. Or putting minority rights above majority rights.”

    How is saying that gays should have the right to enter into voluntary agreements called marriages putting minority rights over majority rights? I’d say that it is recognizing that ALL individuals have the same right to enter into voluntary relationships.

    For a guy who claims to be a constitutionalist you sure don’t sound like one. You sound more like a social democrat who believes that majorities should be able to take away the rights of minorities through voting. Pure democracy leads to mob rule which is tyranny of the majority.

    “‘States Rights’ is also something Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers said too.”

    This had to do with the state governments dealing with the federal government. It is NOT an excuse for states to violate individual rights. By this logic any form of tyranny is OK as long as it is done at the state level. If my rights are being trampled it doesn’t make much of a difference to me if it is the federal government, the state government, or the local government that is doing the trampling, the bottom line to me is that my rights are being violated. Individual rights are superior to “states rights”.

  68. Andy Says:

    “=No, only allow it in cases of abuse or adultery, otherwise you’re stuck for life with your spouse.”

    So you want to force people to stay together even if it is against their will. What gives you the right to force people to stay together even if they don’t want to do this? Man, you sure are a busy body. You are like that nosy next door neighbor that won’t mind their own business.

  69. Andy Says:

    “Furthermore, the Gay community is not asking for equal treatment, they are asking to defile the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is a holy union between man and woman.”

    The government has ALREADY DEFILED the sanctity of marriage by saying that people have to get government marriage licenses. Since marriage is a religious ceremony, and since our government is SUPPOSED to be prohibited from establishing religion, this is blatantly unconstitutional. The very act of ANYONE having to get a government marriage license should be regaurded as an INSULT.

  70. Trent Hill Says:

    Im against Cody on this one unfortunately.
    Im with Andy in that marriage should not have any government involvement whatsoever.
    However, that is unrealistic.

    Id prefer to elevate the Civil Union to have ALL the same rights as a marriage. But since marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. So gays have EVERY right to marry equally, they just dont have a right to change the definition of marriage. However, if Civil Unions had all the same rights,it would be equal right?
    Or would you then say because it has a different name that it is now unequal?

    However,unlike Cody I would not make divorce illegal. While I understand his point, it WOULD bring the seriousness back into the decision. It would make Marriage a much more sacred thing again, and most kids would grow up with two parents.
    The unforeseen problem with this is that those kids will instead grow up in a volatile household with two unhappy parents (unless they start abusing,then divorce is allowed).
    So while I can see Cody’s point…I agree with Andy more.

  71. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    March 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
    Im against Cody on this one unfortunately.
    Im with Andy in that marriage should not have any government involvement whatsoever.
    However, that is unrealistic.”

    It is realistic if enough people are willing to take a stand agains the absurd notion that people should have to get government marriage licenses.

    For anyone who thinks that people should have to get government marriage licenses, consider this. Should people have to get government friendship licenses? Want a new friend? Well, you can’t do it legally unless you go to the government and get a friendship license. Then we can pass laws to set criteria for who can be friends with who.

    Thinking about getting a roommate? Better get a government roommate license.

    Marriage exsisted for thousands of years before government marriage licenses came into exsistence in the mid 1800’s. If government marriage licenses were abolished marriage would still exsist.

    “I’d prefer to elevate the Civil Union to have ALL the same rights as a marriage. But since marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. So gays have EVERY right to marry equally, they just dont have a right to change the definition of marriage. However, if Civil Unions had all the same rights,it would be equal right?
    Or would you then say because it has a different name that it is now unequal?”

    Since the term marriage implies a religious ceremony of some sort, all government marriages should be regaurded as civil unions.

  72. Trent Hill Says:

    Well,whatever the name is. I dont care if its equal. I dont believe I should have special rights as a married man…nor do I think homosexuals should. But they can’t be married. By definition its impossible. They can be…weeble-warbled. Or Togethered,lol. You get it.

  73. globalist_elitist Says:

    I mostly agree with Trent and Andy here (rare company). I think it undermines the seriousness of the injustice when advocates (usually not gay themselves) insist on calling hetero and homo unions by the same name. If Weeble-Warbled would make it so my gay neighbor could visit his dying partner in the hospital, then I don’t think he would want to wait around for my union to be called the same thing – meanwhile, his Weeble-Warble-mate lay dying on a hospital bed. That’s like saying that women cannot be equal to men unless they are henceforth called men. Man + woman =/ man + man, and man + man =/ woman + woman. They are different things, so if they have different names, so what? The rights the unions confer need to be equal, everything else is just semantic B.S.

  74. Cody Quirk Says:

    I don’t think that anyone should force their beliefs or lifestyles on others. This applies to gays just as much as it applies to religious extremists just as it applies to everyone else.

    =A lot of activist gays do, they’re on the same level as fascists in my opinion.

    If two individuals voluntarily agree to contract, and if government is to exsist, than the government should enforce the terms of that contract.

    =so the government should force gays to cohabilitate with each other if they want to marry or enter into a union?

    The only case that this would apply to marriage is in the case of divorce when splitting up jointly owned property.

    =It’s bad enough how divorce cases already stress the legal system.

    Let’s say that two NON-gay people of the same sex enter into some form of contract together. It could be a business contract or it could be a roommate contract or it could be something else. Then let’s say that one of the people in the contract desides that they want out, or lets say that one of the people in the contract does something that violates the terms of that contract. Since we have a government, the government is SUPPOSED to enforce the terms of that contract. Keep in mind that our right to enter into voluntary contracts is unlimited. So under our present system the government would have to enforce the terms of that contract.

    =if its a business contact, that’s alright. But marriage, even regulated by the government, is still a moral institution, and if a state wants to keep such a institution between a man and a woman, that state has every right to.

    You are saying that gays who enter into marriage contracts should NOT have the terms of their contracts enforced. Why? This is BLATANT discrimination. Just because you don’t like a particular group it does not mean that this group shouldn’t have the same rights that you have, and that includes the right to contract and to have contracts enforced.

    =My personal opinion, the only rights gays should have is the right to do what they like in the bedroom and live their lifestyle.
    If we’re going to allow gay marriage nation-wide then we minus well allow polygamy too.
    When it comes to equal rights, then how about we give equal rights to pedophiles? Should they have the rights to do whatever they want to children, consentually? Or what about equal rights to terrorists, should they have a right to conduct their activities without interference?
    I also thought you don’t want government to regulate marriage, if that’s the case, why do you want government involvement with gay marriage?

    Since you don’t believe that gays should have the right to contract or to have their contracts enforced what other rights do you think that gays shouldn’t have? Do you believe that they should not be able to own guns? Do you believe that they should not have free speech? Do you believe that they should not be protected against unreasonable searches and siezures?

    =the only two things gays shouldn’t have is a right to marry or have more rights and benifits then hetrosexuals.

    WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO GET A GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE LICENSE? NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO GET ONE, WHETHER THEY ARE GAY OR STRAIGHT!

    =Then why should government enforce and regulate marriage or civil contracts or divorces in the first place?

    The only role for government would be to enforce the terms of any contract that may be involved in a marriage, if even this.

    =It’s still government intervention. I’m just saying.

    If we had a purist libertarian society there wouldn’t even be a government so the entire issue would be a moot point.

    =I’m not for that, only for a government based on the people and the US Constitution. And wouldn’t this contredict your view of government honoring ‘contracts’?

    People do NOT have the right to vote to take away other people’s rights! We are NOT a pure democracy, we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. In our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC a majority does NOT have the right to take away the rights of a minority through voting.

    =First off by voting to prohibit Gay Marriage, YOU’RE VOTING TO PRESERVE A INSTITUTION THE WAY IT IS! IT’S NOT TAKING AWAY A PERSON’S RIGHT! We never had Gay Marriage in our country before, and states have a right by the 10Th Amendment to not have Gay Marriage now in the state.
    Gay Marriage isn’t a ‘right’, its a previleged benifit that gay people want these days, and are not necessarily entitled to.
    Hey, if you have a right to marry your same gender lover, then I have a right to throw bricks at cop cars and not get arrested.
    And also the legislature has a right to prohibit gay marriage.

    =Tell me Andy, when in history before has there been gay marriage?

    I’m all for citizens initiative & referendum, however, the initiative & referendum MUST BE IN ALIGNEMENT WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Just as I believe that the legislatures should not pass bills that violate individual rights I also believe that initiative & referendum should not violate individual rights.

    =Read my lips- GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT!

    The first amendment PROHIBITS the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. A religion is a set of beliefs. It is your belief that homosexuals should not be able to enter into marriages. You are trying to get laws passed that FORCE your beliefs onto others. Therefore you are establishing your religion as the state religion and you are forcing it on others at the point of a gun. This is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.

    =What about the Unitarians or the Metropolian Community Church, or the UCC? Such denominations advocate for gay marriage, yet both are no exception under the 1st Amendment. So in a way, legalizing gay marriage would be like putting the doctrine of these Churches above all other Churches and faiths in America, with is also a violation of the 1st- Since you would be imposing your religious views upon all others.

    If you don’t believe that gays should marry, then fine, don’t marry a man. Guess what, I don’t believe in marrying men either, however, unlike you I don’t believe that I’ve got the right to force my tastes or preferences on others. Why can’t you just MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LIVE AND LET LIVE?

    =Why do you want to empose gay marriage? You think it’s a right, but in fact you are forcing your tastes down people’s throuts, WHY CAN’T YOU SIMPLY BE HAPPY WITH THE RIGHTS YOU ALREADY HAVE AND STOP PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE OTHERS? WHY CAN’T YOU LEAVE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE ALONE?

    Another point here is that it would be impossible for every right that people have to be listed in a Constitution. You’ve got a right to eat what you want. You got a right to sleep when you want. You’ve got a right to chose your occupation. You’ve got a right to hop on one foot. Just because a right isn’t specifically listed it doesn’t mean that that right does not exsist. The Constitution is meant to RESTRAIN government. The powers GRANTED to government are few and are SPECIFICALLY listed. Anything that is not specifically listed as being a power granted to government is left to the people. You’ll probably bring up that the 10th amendment leaves things not specifically enumerated to the States or to the people, however, keep in mind that the various state constitution place LIMITS on state power. Every state constitution that I’ve ever looked at goes pretty far in protecting individual freedom.

    =Gay marriage is not protected in the Constitution, and neither is it a civil right. It may be a civil right to protect a Latino’s right to vote, but i’s not a civil right for McDonalds or restaraunts to have to provide mexican food, or food suited for Latino tastes. States necessarily cannot prohibit homosexual behavior, but they can prohibit a excessive previlege like gay marriage.

    How is saying that gays should have the right to enter into voluntary agreements called marriages putting minority rights over majority rights? I’d say that it is recognizing that ALL individuals have the same right to enter into voluntary relationships.

    =Marriage is a sacred institution that’s nothing to take lightly. I recall that many of the gay couples issued married in Mass. after legalization where filing for divorce after a few weeks. While it’s true that marriage isn’t taken seriously anymore in America, period. Many devout and dedicated people maintain their marriage for a perminent basis, I being one of them. Besides, again, if gay marriage is legalized, it will create a domino effect for legalizing polygamy, polyandry, bigamy, bestiality (eventually people will be marrying animals). It will become one big joke. As if marriage isn’t as sacred as it used to be. but if you allow for gay marriage, you minus well allow ANY form of sexual union, regardless of partners or species, etc.
    The present state of marriage is bad enough, gay marriage would just make it much, much worse.

    =But like I said, gay people can enter into a voluntary relationship, they just can’t have it seen as the equevilant of marriage or be entitled to the same benifits.

    For a guy who claims to be a constitutionalist you sure don’t sound like one. You sound more like a social democrat who believes that majorities should be able to take away the rights of minorities through voting. Pure democracy leads to mob rule which is tyranny of the majority.

    =You idiot, Constitutionalists aren’t Libertarians! Not only do we want to preserve the legal aspects of the US Constitution, we seek to perserve the moral aspects of it too. Constitutionalist don’t advocate for theocracy, but some religious aspects of the founding fathers, or our government institutions, we seek to maintain. We believe in majority rule/minority rights- only problem is the minority wants more rights then the majority has.
    The people’s right to petition to perserve certain institutions and the state and local institutions acting to do the same is not ‘social democrat’!
    The majority however, has the right to stop minorities from getting too much power or inacting changes that would give then more rights or benifits then the majority has. Gay Marriage is not a right, get over it!
    And Constitutionalists work through the 10th Amendment to combat gay marriage instead of going through the federal government.
    there’s nothing ‘social democrat’ about that!

    This had to do with the state governments dealing with the federal government. It is NOT an excuse for states to violate individual rights. By this logic any form of tyranny is OK as long as it is done at the state level. If my rights are being trampled it doesn’t make much of a difference to me if it is the federal government, the state government, or the local government that is doing the trampling, the bottom line to me is that my rights are being violated. Individual rights are superior to “states rights”.

    =Get over it Andy, gay marriage is not a individual right! And the states have every right to regulate marriage the way they see fit. If you live in a place that prohibits gay marriage, then move to a place that allows it! What’s wrong with getting married to your parner in another country and have that country recognize it? This is America, and while we believe in liberty, we also believe in keeping our morals and traditions. Including marriage.

  75. Cody Quirk Says:

    “=No, only allow it in cases of abuse or adultery, otherwise you’re stuck for life with your spouse.”

    So you want to force people to stay together even if it is against their will.

    Andy, you’re an idiot. I’m saying divorce should be automatically granted when there are either of those two things in the marriage. Otherwise you can’t just get a easy divorce because your husband always leaves the toilet seat up. That’s my two cents, but that couldn’t be emposed on today’s society, thanks to Hollywood.

    What gives you the right to force people to stay together even if they don’t want to do this? Man, you sure are a busy body. You are like that nosy next door neighbor that won’t mind their own business.

    =You know what Andy, you want to force alien ideas upon people and even if they won’t allow it, you still would shove it down their throuts anyways when you think gay marriage is a “right”, even though that’s your opinion and not everybody agrees with you. So the states that ban gay marriage, what are you going to do about them if through politics or the courts, you still cannot rid their prohibition of gay marriage? Would you resort to force, then? If so you’re nothing but a pathedic black-shirt fascist.

  76. Cody Quirk Says:

    The government has ALREADY DEFILED the sanctity of marriage by saying that people have to get government marriage licenses. Since marriage is a religious ceremony, and since our government is SUPPOSED to be prohibited from establishing religion, this is blatantly unconstitutional. The very act of ANYONE having to get a government marriage license should be regaurded as an INSULT.

    =We’re talking about morality, not bureaucracy.

  77. Cody Quirk Says:

    Trenty I wasn’t advocate for outlawing divorce- I’m not a ultraconservative Catholic, I’m saying there should be more restrictions to it since it may teach people to stop taking marriages for granted.

    When it comes to marriage licenses, I could really give a s**t.

    But again…............

    GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT!

  78. Cody Quirk Says:

    The real solution here is to send your kids to the school of your choice or to home school them.

    That would be nice, Utah just passed something like that into law recently.

  79. Cody Quirk Says:

    What I’m saying is look beyond your narrow-minded view of homosexuals. You really stood up for the Mormons in one post, even though it wasn’t the most popular thing to do. Maybe do a little research on homosexuality and see how they really are. You’d be suprised.

    =I know how they are. And personally the only good gays are ones that act like human beings, don’t have multiple parners or glorify sex or constantly hit on others, and dress appropriately and not like a freak.

    At least my gay relatives don’t bother to shove their lifestyle down people’s throuts or be intimate with their partners at family get-togethers. They act like normal people, not like they’re eccentric. So they’re alright with me.

    I may respect the rights of gay people to live their lifestyle, but I personally believe homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, and also The Book of Mormon. In my view, the Metropolian Community Church is a absolute joke, as are related denominations.

  80. Andy Says:

    “=We’re talking about morality, not bureaucracy.”

    So you think that government licensing of marriage is moral. I’d say that government licensing of marriage in itself is immoral.

  81. Andy Says: