1. Someone asked if the state could restrict (prohibit) heterosexual marriage:

It already does in many states regarding relationships considered “too close” in the family tree. Some call that incestual. Some have referred to it as protecting the (possibly deformed — my words– children).

2. Someone commented separately that the reason for “incest” protections/restrictions was to protect a third party (the child).

How do we all square that with the view that an unborn (or in this case un-conceived) child has any rights to protect itself (i.e., from abortion)? Seems like some on the the liberal left want to claim gay marriage is a right by pointing to this reason, but it runs counter to the belief that the unborn have no rights. Are they now claiming that the unborn have no rights, but the unconceived have to be protected?

logic yoga….

I’ve had to work with people that were dealing with bipolar disorder… It’s difficult.

I’m certainly not making any excuses for McWilliams’ actions, but bipolar disorder would explain where those actions may have come from.

See the cached info of the site here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Amaramcwilliams.com

RLR

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

Well, they all got that one right, but tend to take it to the extreme.

But when it comes to religion, it’s a different definition.

Get used to it kids. Should Capt. Big Ears and his Boy Blunder become successful in their attempt at turning this country into the United Socialist Republic of America, you can be damn sure to wish that this is all they will do.

Do you really want the government to pick out your spouse?

It would lead to an interesting version of outsourcing to other countries…

On October 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm, CO2 Producer said:

If marriage is right, then where’s my wife? Can the government hand one to me?

Do you really want the government to pick out your spouse?

And get the lowest possible bidder?

The Constitution doesn’t give rights.

Thats true, and any powers not specficaly mentioned in the constitution are give to the states. Which is where the licensing laws come in. It is also where abortion should be in my opinion. Then California again can have free abortions for all and utah can be more restrictive reflecting the locals views and not the views of interest groups half way across the country.

The Constitution doesn’t give rights.

It protects rights that already exist (because they were endowed by the Creator).

That’s why the 1st Amendment does not say “You are hereby endowed with the right of free speech.”

That’s also why it DOES say:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

The ‘Freedome of speech” was already there. The Constitution simply denied the government the right to infringe it (respecting the Declaration’s language that the rights the Creator endowed are “inalienable.”

On October 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm, conservativesRus said:
Of course – being the thinking person I am, I’m still trying to figure the “honesty” of collecting taxes from ANY entity that can’t vote. Corporations pay lots of taxes and never get to vote. One of those “taxation without representation” things.

Since you make the point, I’ll follow up with this question, for the sake of discussion: why do people who pay no taxes (or receive a net gain from the government after paying taxes and receiving government relief) have the right to vote? Now, I’m sure some exceptions could be made (i.e. past/present service members, widows, police, fire, teachers, clergy/full-time missionaries, etc.), but could this be a plausible possibility for our government?