Comments on: How Much Do You Know About Roe? http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/ Weblog of the Pro-Life Action League's Youth Outreach Division Fri, 04 May 2012 20:49:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: rosie http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1526 rosie Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:02:58 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1526 Fine by me as long as my health insurance rates don't go up because of it. Fine by me as long as my health insurance rates don’t go up because of it.

]]> By: mary kay http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1525 mary kay Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:41:11 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1525 young christian woman, Amen to that! MK young christian woman,

Amen to that!

MK

]]> By: Young Christian Woman http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1524 Young Christian Woman Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:10:46 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1524 Personally, I think that the best solution to the gay marriage issue is for the government to get out of institutions that belong to religion. There is no longer any consensus in society as to what marriage is or means. The government should simply start issuing licenses for "civil unions" which have the financial aspects that marriage currently does. If you wanted to get married, you would have to find a religious institute that performed marriages. Civil unions could unite any number of consenting adults and be dissolved at will and no one would mind as much as they do when the name of marriage is profaned. Personally, I think that the best solution to the gay marriage issue is for the government to get out of institutions that belong to religion. There is no longer any consensus in society as to what marriage is or means. The government should simply start issuing licenses for “civil unions” which have the financial aspects that marriage currently does. If you wanted to get married, you would have to find a religious institute that performed marriages. Civil unions could unite any number of consenting adults and be dissolved at will and no one would mind as much as they do when the name of marriage is profaned.

]]> By: Lucy http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1508 Lucy Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:46:21 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1508 There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage”. Only perverts trying to pervert the God-given sanctity of marriage which has always been between one man and one woman. Quinn, I don't know how to tell you this, but your message to Lauren is the first time that I have given any consideration to the possiblity that you weren't in High School. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that...it has been my perception that, statements like this are about par. Marriage has overall been a financial institution as much as a religious institution. The fact is that in the this country The first amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from interferring within the institution of religion. This means that our government does not get to recognize or deny religious arrangments. Since one church may sanction Gay marriage, Which does exist, I was the Maid of Honor in a Gay Marriage. My friends wife's best man was her Sunday School Teacher, funny little world we have here...despite the fact that another may refuse it the Government cannot get involved without violating the first amendment. Even Amendments can violate amendments. Now, your church may refuse to marry anyone it may see fit. However, if another church chooses to marry them then they may. The government doesn't get to interfer. This is how we avoid being a Theocracy, or having a Church of the United States. Your God is not everyones God. Once again, not trying to be mean, but I seriously was operating under the impression that you were in High School. There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage”. Only perverts trying to pervert the God-given sanctity of marriage which has always been between one man and one woman.

Quinn,
I don’t know how to tell you this, but your message to Lauren is the first time that I have given any consideration to the possiblity that you weren’t in High School. I’m not trying to be mean, it’s just that…it has been my perception that, statements like this are about par.

Marriage has overall been a financial institution as much as a religious institution. The fact is that in the this country The first amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from interferring within the institution of religion. This means that our government does not get to recognize or deny religious arrangments. Since one church may sanction Gay marriage, Which does exist, I was the Maid of Honor in a Gay Marriage. My friends wife’s best man was her Sunday School Teacher, funny little world we have here…despite the fact that another may refuse it the Government cannot get involved without violating the first amendment. Even Amendments can violate amendments.

Now, your church may refuse to marry anyone it may see fit. However, if another church chooses to marry them then they may. The government doesn’t get to interfer. This is how we avoid being a Theocracy, or having a Church of the United States. Your God is not everyones God.

Once again, not trying to be mean, but I seriously was operating under the impression that you were in High School.

]]> By: Quinn http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1506 Quinn Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:02:51 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1506 There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage". Only perverts trying to pervert the God-given sanctity of marriage which has always been between one man and one woman. There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage”. Only perverts trying to pervert the God-given sanctity of marriage which has always been between one man and one woman.

]]> By: Lauren http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1504 Lauren Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:55:15 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1504 If homosexual marriage threatens your marriage, then there is something wrong with YOUR marriage. If homosexual marriage threatens your marriage, then there is something wrong with YOUR marriage.

]]> By: Lauren http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1503 Lauren Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:53:34 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1503 This coming from "shadow government" I dont want any compliments from you. In fact, an insult from you in many ways is a compliment. You all should be ashamed of yourself if Quinna has complimented you. This coming from “shadow government” I dont want any compliments from you. In fact, an insult from you in many ways is a compliment. You all should be ashamed of yourself if Quinna has complimented you.

]]> By: Quinn http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1500 Quinn Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:53:56 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1500 Lauren complained "I’ve been treated like a child on this site" That's because your posts sound like they are being written by a child, more specificly, a girl in high school. That was my first impression of you from your first posts and it is still my impression of you today. Compared to the posts others make on this blog the impression is all the more striking. Lauren complained

“I’ve been treated like a child on this site”

That’s because your posts sound like they are being written by a child, more specificly, a girl in high school. That was my first impression of you from your first posts and it is still my impression of you today. Compared to the posts others make on this blog the impression is all the more striking.

]]> By: Mary Kay http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1476 Mary Kay Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:06:42 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1476 Lucy, I understand what you are saying about heroes... It was actually very sweet...but there are heroes and there are Heroes. The boy who holds the door for me is certainly worth noting, but I'm not going to model my life after him. The one particular behavior, yes, but not my whole life. Heroes with a capital "H" however are people that I strive to imiitate in many areas of my life. The saints, Jesus, my mother, my father...people who across the board, over and over, behave in ways that make me want to study them and and become like them...This is what I thought you meant by your honoring Thomas Jefferson. These people risked their lives, or sacrificed themselves, for the betterment of others...And I was just trying to say that I would be upset if you didn't respect my heroes and understood why you were upset that I didn't respect yours. When I asked you how I did with my def. of life, I wasn't asking if you approved of the definition per se, only if that was what you meant when you asked for a definition. I think everyone was unclear on what you meant by definition. I think somewhere you explained you wanted a more spiritual def. but I still wasn't sure if what I gave you was what you asked for. Okay, need coffee and shower. Then I'll get back to you about marriage... MK Lucy,

I understand what you are saying about heroes…
It was actually very sweet…but there are heroes and there are Heroes. The boy who holds the door for me is certainly worth noting, but I’m not going to model my life after him. The one particular behavior, yes, but not my whole life. Heroes with a capital “H” however are people that I strive to imiitate in many areas of my life.

The saints, Jesus, my mother, my father…people who across the board, over and over, behave in ways that make me want to study them and and become like them…This is what I thought you meant by your honoring Thomas Jefferson. These people risked their lives, or sacrificed themselves, for the betterment of others…And I was just trying to say that I would be upset if you didn’t respect my heroes and understood why you were upset that I didn’t respect yours.

When I asked you how I did with my def. of life, I wasn’t asking if you approved of the definition per se, only if that was what you meant when you asked for a definition. I think everyone was unclear on what you meant by definition. I think somewhere you explained you wanted a more spiritual def. but I still wasn’t sure if what I gave you was what you asked for.

Okay, need coffee and shower.

Then I’ll get back to you about marriage…

MK

]]> By: Lucy http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1472 Lucy Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:12:42 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1472 Mary Kay, Regarding how you did on your response to the question regarding the definition of Life. I'll give you the same response that I gave Michael. That's up to you. It is your life, you define it. I do not define your life. I define mine. If you are asking if your definition matches mine, the answer is no. However, my definition of life would not suit you either. This is not an issue. There will be a variation in every definition of life given. I believe that this is appropriate. We all give our definition based on our own experiences and our own understanding of them. For most people on this site Religion is going to play in intrical part in the definiton that they give. Once again, this is not an issue. I do not have a problem with Religion as long as it is not imposed upon me. If it works out that I am wrong and you are correct then it will do me no good by the rules of any of the Religions of the world to have followed the rules and regulations of any religion against my will. Once again, I wasn't baiting, I was asking. Mary Kay,
Regarding how you did on your response to the question regarding the definition of Life. I’ll give you the same response that I gave Michael. That’s up to you. It is your life, you define it. I do not define your life. I define mine. If you are asking if your definition matches mine, the answer is no. However, my definition of life would not suit you either. This is not an issue. There will be a variation in every definition of life given. I believe that this is appropriate. We all give our definition based on our own experiences and our own understanding of them. For most people on this site Religion is going to play in intrical part in the definiton that they give. Once again, this is not an issue. I do not have a problem with Religion as long as it is not imposed upon me. If it works out that I am wrong and you are correct then it will do me no good by the rules of any of the Religions of the world to have followed the rules and regulations of any religion against my will.

Once again, I wasn’t baiting, I was asking.

]]> By: Lucy http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1470 Lucy Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:05:06 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1470 I understand that wasn't the point, I just wanted to clarify, I realized I should clarify. I understand that wasn’t the point, I just wanted to clarify, I realized I should clarify.

]]> By: Lucy http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1469 Lucy Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:04:39 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1469 For the record, when I said Kennedy I was speaking of JFK. A man that this country can be proud to have had in the office of President in my opinion. For the record, when I said Kennedy I was speaking of JFK. A man that this country can be proud to have had in the office of President in my opinion.

]]> By: Lucy http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1468 Lucy Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:02:55 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1468 Mary Kay, I read what you said about the comparison of Thomas Jefferson and Jesus. I don't know about the whole hero thing. I mean, we are talking about individuals who did extrodinary things it is true. But to every family who someone brings dinner home to, there is a hero. If we take a look around ourselves at what is actually happening right under our noses, we will find that heros aren't so very hard to find. The teenage boy who holds the door for the woman with two exhausted screaming children, and an arm load of groceries is as much a hero as the George Washington, in my findings. No one will write about him in a history book its true, but I don't think that dismisses his actions as unworthy of observation. I think that it is easy for all of us to forget this sometimes, but I find that if I just remember that Heros aren't always found in a blaze of glory, my day goes easier. Mary Kay,
I read what you said about the comparison of Thomas Jefferson and Jesus. I don’t know about the whole hero thing. I mean, we are talking about individuals who did extrodinary things it is true. But to every family who someone brings dinner home to, there is a hero. If we take a look around ourselves at what is actually happening right under our noses, we will find that heros aren’t so very hard to find. The teenage boy who holds the door for the woman with two exhausted screaming children, and an arm load of groceries is as much a hero as the George Washington, in my findings. No one will write about him in a history book its true, but I don’t think that dismisses his actions as unworthy of observation.

I think that it is easy for all of us to forget this sometimes, but I find that if I just remember that Heros aren’t always found in a blaze of glory, my day goes easier.

]]> By: Lucy http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1467 Lucy Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:54:24 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1467 Michael Medved says that at this point in time gays have all the same rights that we have. I can marry someone of the opposite sex, so can they. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, neither can they. I cannot marry someone under 17, either can they. I cannot marry more than one person. Either can they. So in essence they are asking for “special rights”. I don't believe I understand how a same sex couple being 'married' is offensive, or making a request for 'special rights.' I can't imagine how this is somehow an afront to marriage. Of course, it is my understanding that churches hold the power to individually refuse to marry 'straight' couples if they see fit, and so therefore I see no problem with an individual church refusing to perform whatever other ceremony it does not see fit. I believe that is involved in the whole freedom of religion part of the First amendment and should not be violated. I don't think the government has a place to interfer with a church does and does not marry anymore than I believe that the church should meddle in what marriages the government recognizes. It might be worth considering that defining marriage as an institution that must exclude based off of differences is about the equivalent of what happened, and still happens with racially mixed couples. It is the equivalent of Separate but Equal. Michael Medved says that at this point in time gays have all the same rights that we have. I can marry someone of the opposite sex, so can they. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, neither can they. I cannot marry someone under 17, either can they. I cannot marry more than one person. Either can they.

So in essence they are asking for “special rights”.

I don’t believe I understand how a same sex couple being ‘married’ is offensive, or making a request for ‘special rights.’ I can’t imagine how this is somehow an afront to marriage. Of course, it is my understanding that churches hold the power to individually refuse to marry ‘straight’ couples if they see fit, and so therefore I see no problem with an individual church refusing to perform whatever other ceremony it does not see fit. I believe that is involved in the whole freedom of religion part of the First amendment and should not be violated. I don’t think the government has a place to interfer with a church does and does not marry anymore than I believe that the church should meddle in what marriages the government recognizes.

It might be worth considering that defining marriage as an institution that must exclude based off of differences is about the equivalent of what happened, and still happens with racially mixed couples. It is the equivalent of Separate but Equal.

]]> By: rosie http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1462 rosie Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:46:24 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1462 Young Christian Woman, "The only major politician we have that’s consistent is Ted Kennedy, who is consistently wrong. And a murderer (no, I don’t mean unborn children, either). " So true! Young Christian Woman,
“The only major politician we have that’s consistent is Ted Kennedy, who is consistently wrong. And a murderer (no, I don’t mean unborn children, either). ”
So true!

]]> By: Young Christian Woman http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1458 Young Christian Woman Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:39:19 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1458 Just a note: I live in Massachusetts. Never vote for a politician from Massachusetts. If they've gotten anywhere in politics, they got there through being wishy-washy and flippity-floppity. DO NOT VOTE ROMNEY no matter how he paints himself. The liberals and conservatives both hate him. There could be a major political climate change in this state sometime, but right now, those who actually believe in their Christian values can't usually even get elected to state government. The only major politician we have that's consistent is Ted Kennedy, who is consistently wrong. And a murderer (no, I don't mean unborn children, either). Just a note: I live in Massachusetts. Never vote for a politician from Massachusetts. If they’ve gotten anywhere in politics, they got there through being wishy-washy and flippity-floppity. DO NOT VOTE ROMNEY no matter how he paints himself. The liberals and conservatives both hate him. There could be a major political climate change in this state sometime, but right now, those who actually believe in their Christian values can’t usually even get elected to state government. The only major politician we have that’s consistent is Ted Kennedy, who is consistently wrong. And a murderer (no, I don’t mean unborn children, either).

]]> By: Mary Kay http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1455 Mary Kay Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:32:12 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1455 Rosie, Absolutely! Whatever. Call it jumping the broom, co-habitating license, or union non-specified. Just, please, don't call it marriage. It demeans what marriage is, and, while this might sound childish, we were here first! MK Rosie,

Absolutely! Whatever. Call it jumping the broom, co-habitating license, or union non-specified. Just, please, don’t call it marriage.
It demeans what marriage is, and, while this might sound childish, we were here first!

MK

]]> By: rosie http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1454 rosie Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:14:30 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1454 Mary Kay, How about the word "agreement"? Mary Kay,
How about the word “agreement”?

]]> By: Mary Kay http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1451 Mary Kay Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:57:59 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1451 Michael Medved says that at this point in time gays have all the same rights that we have. I can marry someone of the opposite sex, so can they. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, neither can they. I cannot marry someone under 17, either can they. I cannot marry more than one person. Either can they. So in essence they are asking for "special rights". That being said, I don't even have a problem with them forming a civil union recognized by the government allowing them to share the same monetary priveleges that heterosexual couples share. But why do you have to call it marriage. Marriage in my life, is not just a civil ceremony. It is a sacrament. Why do we have to redefine the word "marriage" (the federal definition), to appease a group of people that are not happy with the definition as it is. I am not homophobic. What two people do in the privacy of their own home is not my concern. (As opposed to abortion, where an innocent party is involved). I only object to them using the word marriage because it is not necessary. Don't get me wrong, I believe homosexual unions are morally wrong, but as I said earlier, my own son is in a morally wrong relationship with someone of the opposite sex. I do understand that this is a case of morally questionable behavior compared to criminal behavior. I don't believe it is criminal. I just wish we could find a word other than marriage to describe it. MK Michael Medved says that at this point in time gays have all the same rights that we have. I can marry someone of the opposite sex, so can they. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, neither can they. I cannot marry someone under 17, either can they. I cannot marry more than one person. Either can they.

So in essence they are asking for “special rights”.

That being said, I don’t even have a problem with them forming a civil union recognized by the government allowing them to share the same monetary priveleges that heterosexual couples share.
But why do you have to call it marriage. Marriage in my life, is not just a civil ceremony. It is a sacrament. Why do we have to redefine the word “marriage” (the federal definition), to appease a group of people that are not happy with the definition as it is.
I am not homophobic. What two people do in the privacy of their own home is not my concern. (As opposed to abortion, where an innocent party is involved). I only object to them using the word marriage because it is not necessary. Don’t get me wrong, I believe homosexual unions are morally wrong, but as I said earlier, my own son is in a morally wrong relationship with someone of the opposite sex. I do understand that this is a case of morally questionable behavior compared to criminal behavior. I don’t believe it is criminal. I just wish we could find a word other than marriage to describe it.

MK

]]> By: Lucy http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1448 Lucy Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:57:58 +0000 http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0602/how-much-do-you-know-about-roe/#comment-1448 # Mike says: Speaking more about the Culture of Death. Did you see which senators voted AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate? The Amendment would state that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. —————- Which CATHOLIC U.S. Senators Voted AGAINST THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT? ——————————————————————————– Here’s a Comprehensive List Of U.S. Senators who voted AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment and somehow proclaim themselves as being Catholics…. Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Collins (R-ME) Durbin (D-IL) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Salazar (D-CO) Sununu (R-NH) Reed (D-RI) Notice if only 11 of these 14 “so-called Catholics” voted their faith, the Federal Marriage Amendment would have passed. ————– Last, notice the current leaders in the polls to win the Democratic & Republican nominations to run for President in 2008 also voted AGAINST the FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT… Clinton (D-NY) McCain (R-AZ) ————- Here’s a listing of religious affiliations of those in the U.S. Senate & House… http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html ————– Here’s straight from the Senate records: Here’s the Nays Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Gregg (R-NH) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCain (R-AZ) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Wyden (D-OR) Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 3:27 am I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but this one, I had to. Thankfully it did not pass. The Constitution of The United States Of America is not the platform for legalizing discrimination. In not 'voting their faith' if you will, they have respected their office. They have respected the Separation of Church and State. It's funny, one of the key concerns regarding Kennedy was that he might follow the Vatican more closely than the Constitution. Where is the fear now that our Secular government, which allows all religious ideals to peacefully exist together, might be overtaken by the ideas of a few people who would like their religion to be the law of the land? When the President of the United States assigns ridiculous sums of taxpayer money to 'faith based initiatives' yet refuses to delegate funding for stem cell research, due to a belief that it goes against the religion of himself and some of his constituents we have a problem. This is not a Christian country ladies and gentlemen. This is a Constitutional Republic, which means that the man behind the curtain is really just there making sure that the Constitution that is there to defend the people, not repress, or oppress the people, is upheld. You may site all the numbers you would like, the fact is that if there is one lone Budhist in the midst of a few million Christians then the rights of the Budhist to be Budhist are still just as protected by the Costitution as ever. This is one of the key problems. As I said, it is the belief of some that believe in reincarnation, which you are correct, is a trait common to Hinduism, though not universally held these days. The idea that it is possible that a soul be sent to cause the effect of being itself aborted, and changing the womans life in manners I am sure you have strong opinions regarding, yet still, religously, if this is percieved to be a potential neccessity to achieve Nirvana for either of the souls involved, then it would be a violation of the First Amendment to deny these Religious beliefs to be denied because it is not aligned to other Christian beliefs. It is also a violation against the Athiest, who is guaranteed the right not to practice religion. The insertion of an amendment to the Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage would be just as much a violation of the Constitution. Violating the First Amendment, blatantly, the Fourteenth Amendment and putting a definite strain on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in would be placed in. If gay marriage does something to your gag reflexes I don't know what to tell you. It isn't really anyones problem but your own, and the Constitution cannot be utilized to violate the rights of others to aid the situation. Sorry. #
Mike says:

Speaking more about the Culture of Death. Did you see which senators voted AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate? The Amendment would state that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

—————-

Which CATHOLIC U.S. Senators Voted AGAINST THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT?

——————————————————————————–

Here’s a Comprehensive List Of U.S. Senators who voted AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment and somehow proclaim themselves as being Catholics….

Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Collins (R-ME)
Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sununu (R-NH)
Reed (D-RI)

Notice if only 11 of these 14 “so-called Catholics” voted their faith, the Federal Marriage Amendment would have passed.

————–

Last, notice the current leaders in the polls to win the Democratic & Republican nominations to run for President in 2008 also voted AGAINST the FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT…

Clinton (D-NY)
McCain (R-AZ)

————-

Here’s a listing of religious affiliations of those in the U.S. Senate & House…

http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

————–

Here’s straight from the Senate records:

Here’s the Nays

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 3:27 am

I don’t have time to respond to everything right now, but this one, I had to.

Thankfully it did not pass. The Constitution of The United States Of America is not the platform for legalizing discrimination. In not ‘voting their faith’ if you will, they have respected their office. They have respected the Separation of Church and State. It’s funny, one of the key concerns regarding Kennedy was that he might follow the Vatican more closely than the Constitution. Where is the fear now that our Secular government, which allows all religious ideals to peacefully exist together, might be overtaken by the ideas of a few people who would like their religion to be the law of the land? When the President of the United States assigns ridiculous sums of taxpayer money to ‘faith based initiatives’ yet refuses to delegate funding for stem cell research, due to a belief that it goes against the religion of himself and some of his constituents we have a problem. This is not a Christian country ladies and gentlemen. This is a Constitutional Republic, which means that the man behind the curtain is really just there making sure that the Constitution that is there to defend the people, not repress, or oppress the people, is upheld. You may site all the numbers you would like, the fact is that if there is one lone Budhist in the midst of a few million Christians then the rights of the Budhist to be Budhist are still just as protected by the Costitution as ever. This is one of the key problems.

As I said, it is the belief of some that believe in reincarnation, which you are correct, is a trait common to Hinduism, though not universally held these days. The idea that it is possible that a soul be sent to cause the effect of being itself aborted, and changing the womans life in manners I am sure you have strong opinions regarding, yet still, religously, if this is percieved to be a potential neccessity to achieve Nirvana for either of the souls involved, then it would be a violation of the First Amendment to deny these Religious beliefs to be denied because it is not aligned to other Christian beliefs. It is also a violation against the Athiest, who is guaranteed the right not to practice religion.

The insertion of an amendment to the Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage would be just as much a violation of the Constitution. Violating the First Amendment, blatantly, the Fourteenth Amendment and putting a definite strain on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in would be placed in.

If gay marriage does something to your gag reflexes I don’t know what to tell you. It isn’t really anyones problem but your own, and the Constitution cannot be utilized to violate the rights of others to aid the situation. Sorry.

]]>