Hahahahaah. The bible is an all or nothing proposition bro, either its the word of god or it isnt, you cant pick and choose what fits your worldview and ignore the rest.. you can.. but you;d be an enormous hipocrite.. then again, this doesnt seem to be something thats problematic for you…so.. nevermind I guess.. hahaha.

>“…paging Daryll to the gay couple married in Iowa thread…”

he’s been “delayed” at the airport…

> The interests of the American people = the interests of the
>American government. Comment by Mr P

Your idiocy truly is unceasing. If this were true, no law would ever be found unconstitutional, and there would be no point for the judicial branch to exist. Talk to the lawyer who was your public defender on that indecent exposure charge you got probation for last year… If the law in question does not relate to a fundamental right, it need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Laws are essentially the will, or interest of the people, since they are enacted by legislators chosen by the people. So by your logic, A law is consitutional if it bears a rational relationship to the will of the majority. But thats not the standard, because presumably, if the law didnt bear a rational relationship to the will of the people, it never would have been enacted. So by your assanine “government=the people”
argument, all laws are inherently constitutional. Hahahahah. You crack me up….. this one is even better than your “supporting the president is the same thing as supporting the constitution” argument… hahah dude your never going to pass Civics 101 if you keep up like this..

So, let us set about to enforce these standards, by introducing legislation and ballot initiatives that include the following:

If passed by a simple majority –

1) The purpose of marriage is more defined as being solely for procreation and the raising of offspring.

2) Any man or woman who enters into a marriage with the knowledge of inability to produce offspring or the intent to not produce offspring shall be guilty of defrauding the State and making a false official statement of a willingness and ability to comply with part one.

3) Any marriage that fails to produce offspring naturally (without medical assistance) shall be voided, and the couple shall be liable for any financial or tax discounts received while married. Couples within a marriage may not adopt the offspring of others until they meet the natural conception and birth requirements. In the event that all natural offspring of the couple are deceased or otherwise not living within the household (by choice or by legal decree), the marriage shall be voided if the couple fails to produce other offspring within two years following the date the last offspring lived in the household. This includes any children who have reached their majority, whether living in the household or not.

4) Any persons who have had their marriages voided may not remarry.

5) Divorces are no longer recognized, save for the voiding of a marriage due to inability or unwillingness to produce offspring.

6) Adultery shall now be defined as a serious crime against the State, and shall be punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.

7) Marriages performed outside of the jurisdiction shall not be valid nor recognized unless all the above requirements are met.

Should the measure not pass –

Marriages between any two competent and consenting individuals who have reached the age of majority shall be permitted and recognized, and all rights, responsibilities, and obligations shall be applied equally, regardless of the jurisdiction in which said marriage occurred.

Pretty simple. It is time for the “moral values” bunch to put up or shut up. Either you accept your own rhetoric regarding your claims of the purposes and sanctity of marriage, or you get off your high horse and grant all law abiding citizens in this nation to be treated equally under the law.

The Federal Election Commission yesterday issued the latest in a string of six-figure fines against partisan political groups — this time, against America Coming Together, a group financed by George Soros and labor organizations that sunk more than $100 million into campaign activities intended to help Democrats in the 2004 elections.

The decision to fine the group $775,000, the FEC’s third-largest penalty in its three-decade history, was intended to send a stern message to independent groups. The FEC has said it will crack down on groups that raise unlimited resources outside of the campaign finance system but then spend that money on activities aimed at influencing specific elections
.

Comment by bitblt — August 31, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

Apparently the can. Nobody cares about comparing which is better but instead allowing individuals chose what is best for them. To the best of my knowledge your story also implies the subservent role of the female creation. Do you buy into that as well?

…will have consigned themselves to a relationship inferior to a man-woman relationship.

Inferior in the same way that a child in a single parent household knows he’s missing something by not having a mother and father. It’s not quite right. The child is not inferior but may have feelings of inferiority because he doesn’t have the ideal situation – a mother and a father.

Many Christians, I would be one of them, believe that God invited people to participate in creation when he commanded in Genesis 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply. To make this happen God gave people sexuality and desire.

As long as there is the God ordained relationship – man and woman in a marriage – there will be those who attack this relationship.
So, from where do the attacks on marriage come? unfaithfulness, and perversion, pornography, …

These attacks will also include what you hint: homosexual marriage is as good as heterosexual marriage. This will never be true because homosexuals can not be married.

I believe God’s intention in this area will always supercede any human intention.

Everyone knows now, and will continue to know, that any same-same gender relation will never be a marriage, and anyone who tries to participate in this sort of relationship will have consigned themselves to a relationship inferior to a man-woman relationship.

Inferior to a man-woman relationship? You mean those in the 40-50% divorce rate group? Or are we talking more the kind that just cheat and the wife doesn’t find out? Or the ones that end in murder? Or..

If I’m gonna get hitched, I think I’d like to make sure it’s a gay marriage. These man-woman relationships, ordained by God, seem to be a violent mess. Regardless, I’m glad that you admit to the crux of all of this, the solution to all problems: If God created marriage and that government cannot threaten it, then take away *ALL* legal recognition of marriage. After all, you don’t need protections, extra rights, lower taxes, et al, if you’re doing God’s holy work.

Many Christians consider this account in Genesis – the Creator brought the woman Eve to the man Adam and they were one flesh – to be the beginning of marriage. This marks the relationship as neither a religious or a government permitted relationship. Marriage is older than either religion or government.

God created marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. That’s why a government, which allows two men to commit sexual perversion and call it a marriage, will never threaten marriage.

Everyone knows now, and will continue to know, that any same-same gender relation will never be a marriage, and anyone who tries to participate in this sort of relationship will have consigned themselves to a relationship inferior to a man-woman relationship.

My saying this doesn’t make it this way. This is an observation.

Thanks, I’ve book marked it, check it out later, in the middle of an adobe making operation…

Comment by ProudIowaLib — August 31, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

We are on the same page ProudIowaLib and congrates on your state joining the 21st century.