First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Truth

Utica, NY

#82 Jan 3, 2014
JusticeDefiled13501 wrote:
<quoted text>
.Because the courts have determined that certain marriages were prohibited due to medical or other reasons, this doesn’t lessen the fact that it is still a “basic civil right”.
In my opinion, much of what is wrong with our country today has to do with interpretations. And actually they aren't really interpretations. In many cases these are things that are just made up in order to fit a particular agenda.

There are plenty of examples. Let's go back to the beginning. James Madison is credited as the main author of the US Constitution. Some refer to him as the "Father of the Constitution". He's one of the authors of "The Federalist" which is a primer for the constitution and was written to explain the constitution to those who were going to vote to ratify or not. Given that, who could me more familiar with the original intent? The answer is probably no one.

Fast forward. James Madison is the fourth President of the United States and is presented with a bill for signature. The bill is a proposal for the funding of roads and canals by the federal government. He vetoed that bill saying that he could find nothing in the Constitution that allowed it.( http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.... ) Now look at where we are today. Can you imagine the veto of a public works bill on similar grounds? Of course not. We are where we where we are because of interpretations. Those interpretations that allow for the FHWA, the US Interstate system.... directly contradict the man credited as being the main author of the law of the land. Interpretations by those with an agenda make it that way. Is it right? No, but it's certainly easier than amending the constitution in the manner that the framers designed though.

I believe in reading the words as written and not trying to interpret using something akin to "The Six Degrees of Kevin bacon" in order to come to a conclusion that I find palatable. Loving v Virginia is clearly a case about heterosexual mixed race marriage. Those are the words written in the decision. Can you cite anything, anywhere that would indicate that same-sex marriage(a union based not on physiological differences but sexual preference) was ever contemplated or inferred in any way, shape or form by the SCOTUS in deciding Loving v Virginia? There is no evidence of that. Just "The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" interpretation process by those who favor same sex marriage.

The basis of my opinion about why Loving v Virginia is not relevant is this.
Being black is physiological. Being white is physiological. I can verify ethnicity with genetic testing.
Homosexuality is a sexual preference much more like a mother wanting to marry her son than a black woman(Mildred Loving) wanting to be married to a white man.

You said:
"Because the courts have determined that certain marriages were prohibited due to medical or OTHER REASONS, this doesn’t lessen the fact that it is still a “basic civil right

Actually, if a right can be abridged then it is not a universal right is it? It seems to me that you are saying that rights may be given or exempted depending on who is allowed to draw the line. Your interpretation of Loving v Virginia is just the tool that you use to justify where you want to draw the line. I never ceded the right to draw that line to anyone. Doesn't that interfere with my rights then?
Truth

Utica, NY

#83 Jan 3, 2014
JusticeDefiled13501 wrote:
<quoted text>

As far as restricting this basic civil right, all rights contained in the constitution are restricted at some pint. We have the right to free speech but not the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. We have the right to life but not if the courts decide to end it due to crimes committed and the death penalty imposed. We have the right to express our freedom of religion but not in government buildings and schools. We have the right to bear arms but only certain arms. The list is endless. Limiting rights does not mean that they don’t exist. Courts have been limiting rights since the Bill of Rights was passed.
Because the courts have determined that certain marriages were prohibited due to medical or other reasons, this doesn’t lessen the fact that it is still a “basic civil right”.
Take an honest, objective look back at United States history. Look at those rights you've listed and see how they've changed(without amending the constitution) and who changed them and why.

There are many people still alive today who can remember reading the Bible daily in public schools. Not as a teaching aid but as a devotional.

There are people alive today who can remember buying a pistol from Sear Roebuck by mail or sending guns home from Europe or Asia during and after WWII.

Roe v Wade was decided in 1973 on the basis of a woman's right to privacy. There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution and so one was made up by the SCOTUS through a process of interpretation in order for the court to have standing. The decision was very much one that satisfied a social agenda. There was no way to get there though without amending the constitution to include a right to privacy or creating one. They created it.

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#84 Jan 3, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>

"Because the courts have determined that certain marriages were prohibited due to medical or OTHER REASONS, this doesn’t lessen the fact that it is still a “basic civil right
Actually, if a right can be abridged then it is not a universal right is it? It seems to me that you are saying that rights may be given or exempted depending on who is allowed to draw the line. Your interpretation of Loving v Virginia is just the tool that you use to justify where you want to draw the line. I never ceded the right to draw that line to anyone. Doesn't that interfere with my rights then?
I agree with almost everything you said here. The only thing we don't agree on is whether or not marriage is a "right". Since the courts have abridged almost every right granted in the constitution they obviously don't care about how we feel or what we believe. The supreme court has been legislating from the bench since long before we were around to complain. As a true Conservative I believe in allowing people to live their lives as they see fit, without government interference, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Gay marriage doesn't infringe on my rights or take away my freedoms. On that basis I see no reason to deny gays the same right to marry that I have enjoyed (I use the term enjoy loosely). If you can show me where their right to marry infringes on your rights or freedoms, maybe you can change my mind.
Ben Gleck

Utica, NY

#85 Jan 3, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the racism in what he said?
he was recounting what he witnessed and the way he witnessed it in his youth. That's not racist. It's called recollection.
I didn't lump conservatives together. They lump themselves together. You claim to be of the more independent type conservative. That's great. I'm all for it. We need a sane and functional Republican Party. The G.O.P. leadership seems to be with me on that. They need to quit getting pushed around by their dogmatic, reactionary right wing fringe. The most powerful voice in the conservative movement id Rush Limbaugh. Do you deny that?

If you can't see the racist implications in what Duck man said, you are tone deaf and racially insensitive. In other words, a modern day Republican. Whenever you guys are called on your bigotry, you scream "politically correct." And if I happen to disagree with what you think, I'm called a socialist, commie, liberal, or worse.

Your party has managed to alienate blacks, Latinos, women, gays and the vast majority of literate people. Good luck with that. Oh yeah, lately they have been attacking the Pope. So, throw Catholics in too.
Truth

Utica, NY

#86 Jan 4, 2014
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't lump conservatives together. They lump themselves together. You claim to be of the more independent type conservative. That's great. I'm all for it. We need a sane and functional Republican Party. The G.O.P. leadership seems to be with me on that. They need to quit getting pushed around by their dogmatic, reactionary right wing fringe. The most powerful voice in the conservative movement id Rush Limbaugh. Do you deny that?
If you can't see the racist implications in what Duck man said, you are tone deaf and racially insensitive. In other words, a modern day Republican. Whenever you guys are called on your bigotry, you scream "politically correct." And if I happen to disagree with what you think, I'm called a socialist, commie, liberal, or worse.
Your party has managed to alienate blacks, Latinos, women, gays and the vast majority of literate people. Good luck with that. Oh yeah, lately they have been attacking the Pope. So, throw Catholics in too.
I'm not sure what anyone could say to you to show you how wrong you are. You are emotionally invested in your opinion and no amount of logic or fact is going to change your mind. To that I would quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Name calling? Are you delusional? I urge you to look back through my comments and show where I ever called you a name. In contrast, I'd ask that you look back through your many comments and count the number of times you've called Phil Robertson and conservative people names.

Again, I am no fan of Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck or Coulter or "insert vile or overly emotional conseravtive name here". They rely on emotion just like the MSNBC primetime lineup in order to garner fan base. It's what sells. While I may agree with some of their views I hate their delivery. I think a lot of people who actually take the time to actually search for facts to form their own opinion would agree with me.

Let's try this one last time. Here's the relevant passage from the "GQ" interview that started the controversy.

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say,‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/20...

Is that a racist rant against blacks or is it Robertson recounting his experience and observations as a youth? I think the latter. I think any objective reader would as well.

By the way, Republican is not my party. I know you won't belive that because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion of what the world around you looks like. It's true though.
Ben Gleck

Utica, NY

#87 Jan 4, 2014
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what anyone could say to you to show you how wrong you are. You are emotionally invested in your opinion and no amount of logic or fact is going to change your mind. To that I would quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Name calling? Are you delusional? I urge you to look back through my comments and show where I ever called you a name. In contrast, I'd ask that you look back through your many comments and count the number of times you've called Phil Robertson and conservative people names.
Again, I am no fan of Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck or Coulter or "insert vile or overly emotional conseravtive name here". They rely on emotion just like the MSNBC primetime lineup in order to garner fan base. It's what sells. While I may agree with some of their views I hate their delivery. I think a lot of people who actually take the time to actually search for facts to form their own opinion would agree with me.
Let's try this one last time. Here's the relevant passage from the "GQ" interview that started the controversy.
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say,‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/20...
Is that a racist rant against blacks or is it Robertson recounting his experience and observations as a youth? I think the latter. I think any objective reader would as well.
By the way, Republican is not my party. I know you won't belive that because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion of what the world around you looks like. It's true though.
If you're trying to be the rational voice of the Conservative movement, you're failing miserably. Duck man is suggesting that black people were better off in the Jim Crow South. He's also tying blacks to welfare and food stamps. He says he never saw the mistreatment of blacks , back in those days. I suppose that's possible. But, highly unlikely.
It's just a sneaky way of saying things were better in the old apartheid south. Just like when you use a M.L.K. quote to say that I am ignorant. You defend this Duck man fool because he uses the same sleazy tactics as you. If you don't agree with my point of view, you say it's "emotional" or "politically correct." Let me guess, you are a proud Libertarian. Why beat around the bush? Enough of Duck Man. Let's talk about the Minimum wage. Do you approve ,or no?
Truth

Utica, NY

#88 Jan 4, 2014
JusticeDefiled13501 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with almost everything you said here. The only thing we don't agree on is whether or not marriage is a "right". Since the courts have abridged almost every right granted in the constitution they obviously don't care about how we feel or what we believe. The supreme court has been legislating from the bench since long before we were around to complain. As a true Conservative I believe in allowing people to live their lives as they see fit, without government interference, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Gay marriage doesn't infringe on my rights or take away my freedoms. On that basis I see no reason to deny gays the same right to marry that I have enjoyed (I use the term enjoy loosely). If you can show me where their right to marry infringes on your rights or freedoms, maybe you can change my mind.
How does allowing an uncle to marry his neice past the age of consent infringe on your rights and freedoms. It's a relationship based on sexual preference just like homosexual relationships right? What about the other examples I've given.

In one of your previous responses you mention health reasons. Tread lightly there. Statictics show that the overwhelming majority of HIV cases, which are on the rise by the way, occur in the homosexual population.
From the CDC(not Glen Beck's blog):
"By Risk Group
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1. "
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/atag...

That would be a health reason for not advocating homosexual relationships if we were to use your "health reasons" line of logic.

What about DOMA? Liberal Democrat President Clinton signed that. It's never been overturned as unconstitutional. It defimes marriage as between one man and one woman(as far as the federal government is concerned) If laws like this are such blatant violations of the "basic human rights of man" then how did a law like this ever make it out of committee let alone get passed with veto-proof majorities and then signed by a left leaning President? As of this moment, DOMA has never been repealed or overturned. President Obama decided it was unconstitutional and refuses to defend or enforce it. Selective enforcement(or lack of enmforcement) in order to satify a social agenda.
Truth

Utica, NY

#89 Jan 4, 2014
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text> If you're trying to be the rational voice of the Conservative movement, you're failing miserably. Duck man is suggesting that black people were better off in the Jim Crow South. He's also tying blacks to welfare and food stamps. He says he never saw the mistreatment of blacks , back in those days. I suppose that's possible. But, highly unlikely.
It's just a sneaky way of saying things were better in the old apartheid south. Just like when you use a M.L.K. quote to say that I am ignorant. You defend this Duck man fool because he uses the same sleazy tactics as you. If you don't agree with my point of view, you say it's "emotional" or "politically correct." Let me guess, you are a proud Libertarian. Why beat around the bush? Enough of Duck Man. Let's talk about the Minimum wage. Do you approve ,or no?
I do not approve of a raise in the minimum wage. I think the marketplace should dictate compensation and not a nebulous government index. I think the compensation for any job should be the least amount that the most qualified candidate will accept to do that job. I think raising the minimum wage has a destabilizing and punishing effect on business an on the job market. It's not only those earning minimum age either. Let me give you an example.

Let's say I'm a small business owner. I am going to hire as many people as my budget will allow while still leaving me with a profit that I think is necessary in order to make having the business worth my while. Businesses exist to make money for their owners, not to create jobs.Then say after interviewing 25 interested and qualified applicants(these are low skill, low qualifications jobs where the pool of qualified applicants is very large). Then say I hired two people last January and started them at $7.25/hour(NYS minimum wage). One is an adequate employee who does the minimum and nothing more. The other is a go-getter who really gives 100% all of the time and is really interested in learning the business being a better worker. After a 6 month probationary period I decide to keep both but as a reward for his/her hard work I reward the go-getter with a raise to $8.00/hr. The adequate worker gets no raise but keeps the job. That 75 cent/hour raise translates to about $3000 a year for a full time worker. Then on January 1, 2014 the NYS minimum wage increases to $8.00/hr. How do I handle this? The adequate employee is getting a $3000 a year raise(at my expense) and the go-getter is in an indirect way punished. I have choices to make. I can give the go-getter a bump at my expense or I can pass the cost along to my customers making my business less competitive. Or, I can just leave the go-getters compensation the same and risk losing them. This is a microcosm of what happens when minimum wage is increased. Couple that with the new healthcare law and the obvious outcome will be loss of full time employment.

It is not the responsibility of business to compensate workers at a level that satisfies a liberal social agenda. This is America. This country become the greatest that's ever existed due to self-determination. That's what the term "American Dream" means. The Declaration of Independence says this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says we are entitled to the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say the government should mandate it, provide it or force businesses to provide it. Want more money? Don't think you are paid enough? Work harder. Educate yourself. Move. Start your own business. Find an employer who will pay you what you think you are worth.
Truth

Utica, NY

#90 Jan 4, 2014
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text> If you're trying to be the rational voice of the Conservative movement, you're failing miserably. Duck man is suggesting that black people were better off in the Jim Crow South. He's also tying blacks to welfare and food stamps. He says he never saw the mistreatment of blacks , back in those days. I suppose that's possible. But, highly unlikely.
It's just a sneaky way of saying things were better in the old apartheid south. Just like when you use a M.L.K. quote to say that I am ignorant. You defend this Duck man fool because he uses the same sleazy tactics as you. If you don't agree with my point of view, you say it's "emotional" or "politically correct." Let me guess, you are a proud Libertarian. Why beat around the bush? Enough of Duck Man. Let's talk about the Minimum wage. Do you approve ,or no?
When I was young I rarely went to events at the Utica Memorial Auditorium because my father didn't want to park near the public housing. My memory is that muggings and car break ins were a fairly common occurrence and the reason for his apprehension. One of the few times that I was allowed to go there, a friend and I were mugged and robbed in the lower level by several black male teenagers. It made me very wary of ever going back there while Washington Courts was still standing.

Now, is what I wrote above racist or is it me recalling memories from my youth? Is it racist or is it my perspective based on my experience?
Bareback Mountain

Utica, NY

#91 Jan 4, 2014
I love when my liberal pals argue this out for me. Gets me a stiffy just imagining all this attention about guys like me. If JC were here and now I'd give him a huge slobbery kiss... on the lips... with tongue....Take that Phil!
American

Utica, NY

#92 Jan 4, 2014
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't lump conservatives together. They lump themselves together. You claim to be of the more independent type conservative. That's great. I'm all for it. We need a sane and functional Republican Party. The G.O.P. leadership seems to be with me on that. They need to quit getting pushed around by their dogmatic, reactionary right wing fringe. The most powerful voice in the conservative movement id Rush Limbaugh. Do you deny that?
If you can't see the racist implications in what Duck man said, you are tone deaf and racially insensitive. In other words, a modern day Republican. Whenever you guys are called on your bigotry, you scream "politically correct." And if I happen to disagree with what you think, I'm called a socialist, commie, liberal, or worse.
Your party has managed to alienate blacks, Latinos, women, gays and the vast majority of literate people. Good luck with that. Oh yeah, lately they have been attacking the Pope. So, throw Catholics in too.
I must disagree. He said what he said in the only way he knows how. He was raised a certain way as we all were. He has his own dialect and opinions as we all do. Most importantly, he has his religious beliefs. Thank God for that. He was telling it like it is. Millions of people think the same way but are afraid to say it because they would be labeld "politically incorrect."
Gotta be careful not to offend anyone. Let's not be honest or anything. Gays are 2% of the population at best. Why do the rest of us have to walk on eggshells? I don't hate gays. I pray for them to come to God evey day.
But I won't be silent about my beliefs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Utica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bill Cosby 23 min Renee 37
Take your 82 Yr old Mother with HEART CONDITION... 49 min Concerned 1
Thankful too All that have Helped Bring my Mom ... 1 hr Jay 1
Utica is number 1 in job growth , thanks nano 1 hr Fetal Uticunt Syn... 32
Utica is the best place to raise a family on th... 1 hr Utica trash 14
Joe Bonanossa Joining Allman Brothers 1 hr Joe Who 70
Study shows Utica - Rome are on the verge of an... 1 hr Uticasshole 21
wktv hits ultimate low 5 hr Sux 9
Vitullo Obitary 5 hr There it is 32
Why I left (and love it!) 5 hr Truth sux 67
Local Greaser Angelo "Wopslop" Nole dies! Good ... 9 hr Plows At The Ready 26
state farm new hartford 11 hr Dave 48
Utica Dating
Find my Match

Utica People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Utica News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Utica

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:05 pm PST

NBC Sports 4:05PM
PFT Whiparound: Vick still Jets starter if healthy
NBC Sports 4:13 PM
New York City FC rolls out jet black road jersey; How'd they do?
NBC Sports 4:41 PM
Another ugly Jets loss in already ugly season - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 4:41 PM
Another ugly Jets loss in already ugly season - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 5:41 PM
How Ayers Jr. Can Help Giants' Pass Rush
Bleacher Report 7:50 PM
Beckham Jr. Has Skill Set to Build Around for Giants
Bleacher Report 7:59 PM
How the Bills Can Salvage Their Season
Bleacher Report 8:30 PM
Report: Rex Knows Jets Plan to Fire Him
Bleacher Report 8:30 PM
Report: Rex Knows Jets Plan to Fire Him
Bleacher Report10:47 PM
5 Bold Predictions for New York Giants' Week 13 Matchup