NPRM: Proposed New Listings for Mental Impairments

David Traver

It turns out that the "traditional" "definition" of marriage that is a part of our "national heritage" and in compliance with "God's law" is not biblical in the least. In fact, there is a lot of work to be done to bring it into line with Divine decree. I had no idea that setting up a Christian a theocracy would be so hard!

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

You forgot this issue dealing with holy matrimony:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3919612/Popes-remarks-on-sexuality-will-widen-Anglican-rift.html

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12666

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2005/06/07/pope_says_gay_unions_are_false/

Insider (Ret) · Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 01:11 am Post subject:

Well, I suppose the Pope has a vote in all of this, but it's only one vote and it's only valid in Italy. (Or maybe it's only valid in the Vatican.) What the Pope thinks doesn't address David's point at all, actually. Maybe we need Justice Scalia to interpret the ORIGINAL meaning of the Bible for us. Now that would be fun...

David Traver · Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 01:30 am Post subject:

No Pope in the bible, no marriage in the Constitution. This is getting harder all the time. Nobody said theocracy would be easy.

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

A bit more:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

Depends of if you feel marriage is a sacrament or a legal covenant blessed by the state to give equal rights in such things as health notification and rights of settlement at a point of ending of the covenant or a religious sacrament blessed by the state by centuries of tradition? The bible in the discussion is somewhat a ruse and it was meant to instruct people many years ago in a metaphor sense (there was no world wide flood) When we try to make a comparison to a literal sense it is only to demean folks such as in the monkey trials of yore - it is not met to be a constitution - there is not a supreme court of the bible except the catholic church claims to be one and the pope is matters of faith and morals.

The matter of what marriage is is up to the states and the people who want to petition the states dealing with the issue (weather sectarian or non sectarian) . If it is a 14th amendment issue than it is up to the supreme court but I do not think it will go there any time soon as the risk on all sides is great - IMHO.

BTW - Merry Christmas!

David Traver · Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 02:13 am Post subject:

I've noticed over the decades that "states rights" is an argument made by losers who want to limit the rights of others. Thus we see "states rights" argument falling from the lips and pens of those who wished to preserve slavery, restrict the rights of rape victims, and prevent integration of the military.

To be more specific, I recall when segregationists argued that "states rights" made their vile practice legally sufficient. "It is a matter that is best left to the states" they argued. They made this argument most strongly when they were at the brink of defeat. That is, it was the weakest argument they could make and they rolled it out when it was clear that they were beaten, especially in Truman's desegregation of the military (which I do not remember) and later in 1956 Little Rock (which I do remember).

So it is with those who seek to limit the reproductive rights of others. That battle has long been lost, and the "states rights" approach is a last gasp of the losers in that argument.

States rights is traditionally an argument of those who want to limit the rights of a class of people to which they do not belong. I have never heard of a group using a "states rights" argument to limit their own rights. Have you?

So I am heartened that those who would deprive gays of their human rights are now down to arguing "states rights." It is a clear sign that the sun is setting on their attempts to trample the lives of others.

It is a harbinger of good tidings.

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

We get back to the question of - who or what decides what a "right" is. Normally outside the theological realm it is a majority of a circle of people - you decide the circle. Make it the state or the nation or perhaps the world but sooner or later some group must decide and if a majority decides one way and a minority a different way something must give. We decide "rights" Vs responsibility all the time and it even came up in a debate. It helps to have the majority on your side when someone demands a right. Personally I do not care much over the interesting debate aspect of it as it does not affect me however whenever all stakeholders come to the table and vote on the legal definition of a union then the right to vote then comes into play and that becomes a somewhat supreme right.

States rights and slavery are just a red hearing as the right to vote on a legal definition of a union becomes the issue and I am not opposed to a national vote on it. But I am also agreed that civil unions may also be a good compromise - who knows -- only the shadow? Not the bible but perhaps a community of a commonly held belifes by the majority - if that is counter to "human rights" change the view or there is anarchy.