On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:26:11 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

On Nov 5, 1:08*pm, wrote:

- Yesterday 89% of Missouri voters approved
- an amendment to their State constitution
- making English the official language.

Question : Can You Say "Yes" To Making English
the Official Language of the USA ?

Think About It : Honestly Can You ?

BUT -If- You Can : Are You A Racist ?
.
Are all of the other nations of the world that do have an official
language racists?
France, Germany and Italy, just to name a few, all have "official
languages".
All have immigrants from other countries living there and moving
there.
Why would the US be held to any different standard than any other free
industrialized nation?
The left has been screaming for years for the US to become more like
Europe. So there should be no problem with the US adopting an
official language yes?



Regards


§tarkiller©








'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is
big enough to take away everything you have.'

"You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich."

wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:47 pm, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:59 -0500, Bob Campbell wrote:
wrote in message
...

Yesterday 89% of Missouri voters approved an amendment to their State
constitution making English the official language.
Now if only states like Florida, Texas and California would do the same.
Why?

For the unity of a nation. That's why you imbecile.

Does that mean that they don't speak English in Alaska?

JB

wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:47 pm, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:59 -0500, Bob Campbell wrote:
wrote in message
...

Yesterday 89% of Missouri voters approved an amendment to their State
constitution making English the official language.
Now if only states like Florida, Texas and California would do the same.
Why?

For the unity of a nation. That's why you imbecile.

How does this promote unity? Seems to me it's doing the opposite.

wrote:

The institution of marriage has been between a man and woman since the
beginning of time. It is wrong to force a chiristian pastor to marry
two men or two women together when it goes against their own beliefs.

This whole topic has nothing to do with civil rights or equal rights.

Marriage is a ridiculous cult practice and anybody who wants to
participate has too much time on their hands.

California officially sanctions Domestic Partnership, which conveys all
the "benefits" of the cult ritual marriage (except for the IRS joint
filing status).

On Nov 5, 7:38*am, wrote:
The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them
"rights"-- especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic
this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action
quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed
to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all
the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not
finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

When arbitrary numerical "goals" or "quotas" under affirmative action
are not met, the burden of proof is put on the employer to prove that
he did not discriminate against minorities or women. No burden of
proof whatever is put on the advocates of "goals" or "quotas" to show
that people would be equally represented in jobs, colleges or anywhere
else in the absence of discrimination.

Tons of evidence from countries around the world, and over centuries
of history, show that statistical disparities are the rule, not the
exception-- even in situations where discrimination is virtually
impossible.

Anonymously graded tests do not show the same results from one group
to another. In many countries there are minorities who completely
outperform members of the majority population, whether in education,
in the economy or in sports, even when there is no way that they can
discriminate against the majority.

Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself is a slick
political ploy. The time is long overdue for the voting public to see
through it.

Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has
always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries,
a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that
arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on
logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based
specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to
a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would
be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against
homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making
distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other
purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not.
Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have
a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets
into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many
gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely,
heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order
to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for
gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage,"
showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right
marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination
today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They
were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That
is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because
the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other
things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the
future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did
was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other
people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com

Joke sites. Ignore then.

Loving v. Virginia, which struck down so-called "miscegenation laws"
in the 1960's, established that marriage is indeed a Constitutional
right. There is no legal dispute about this fact.

There's no point putting "rights" in quotes around marriage, any more
than to say First Amendment "rights".

Marriage is a right, and this is settled law.

What's not settled (yet) is whether same-sex couples may marry, as a
matter of US Constitutional law.

However, what has already been ruled upon at the state level, suggests
that there would be no legal connection between an argument involving
two consenting adults, and any crazy hypothetical marriage between one
adult and X (where X is NOT another consenting adult). Whether X is a
can of soup, a Llama, a minor, two spouses, a dog, or the Continent of
Africa, you can't marry them because they either can't consent, or
because there is no equivalent form to a multi-way marriage.

People forget that civil marriage was created primarily to
automatically confer clear inheritance rules in the case of a spouse's
death. It isn't pretty when the groom dies, and the groom's family
fights the bride for all the possessions. Marriage pretty much solves
that kind of legal mess. A multi-way marriage would arguably make
inheritance almost exponentially worse, so it's unlikely that anyone
would want to make such a legal construct. In that case, I guess the
polyamorous couple can live together. It's a free country, after
all.

It's just ridiculous "slippery slope" hysterics to keep dredging up
this "man on dog" marriage crap.

In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:47 pm, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:59 -0500, Bob Campbell wrote:
wrote in message
...

Yesterday 89% of Missouri voters approved an amendment to their State
constitution making English the official language.
Now if only states like Florida, Texas and California would do the same.
Why?

For the unity of a nation. That's why you imbecile.

How does this promote unity? Seems to me it's doing the opposite.



Why do religious people always want to involve themselves with other
people's sex lives? Why would anyone give a **** about gays getting
married, unless it's a shotgun wedding, and you're one of the
participants.

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

wrote:
On Nov 5, 5:20 pm, RHF wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:12 am, "Bob Campbell" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Nov 5, 7:41 am, 527_blue_collar_****** wrote:
wrote:
You lost, get over it.
Not so far. As of Wednesday morning, he won. At this time, 52% of
the votes (from 95% of the precincts) are YES votes, meaning that so
far, the voters agree that marriage MUST BE between a man and a woman.
- Yeah, at least voters haven't totally lost
- their minds. The man/woman marriage amendment
- passed in Florida, Arizona AND California.

GA,

Will that still means that there are 47 States
where basic 'human rights' are almost equal
"Human Rights" for all their Citizens.

The Citizens {Voters} of Arizona, California
and Florida are just plain Mean Spirited.

Let us clarify this Traditional Marriage Concept
is narrowly Defined by Law in those States as a
Legal Civil Union between One Man and One Women.

All the great wonderful 'liberal' people who
are for so-called Gay {Lesbian} Marriage are
some how 'silent' on Equal Rights for those
who's Religious Beliefs allow them to practice
Polygamy {One Man with More-Than One Wife}
like some Mormons and some Muslims.

Basic Human Rights -versus- Basic Religious Freedom :
As long as there is an Equal Right of Religious
Groups to follow their Religion Traditions and
Practices; and can not be required to Preform
"Gay" Marriages as a Matter of Law; and have
their Charitable Status and Tax Exemption
Challenged as a matter of Law : When so-called
"Gay" Marriage between Consenting Adults should
NOT be Prohibited. But then at the same time the
Religious practice of Polygamy Marriage must also
be allowed to exist between Consenting Adults :
In All Fairness and Equality as Both a Legal
Personal and Individual Religious 'Choice' :
That is 'if' we Truly have Religious Freedom
and True Separation of Church and State.

If You Can Say "Yes" to Gay Marriage : You
Clearly Must Be Ready, Willing and Able to
Say yes, Yes. YES ! to Polygamy Marriage.

-IF- NOT... Is the Issue Really About Basic
Human Rights For Each-and-Every Citizen : Or
Just Equal Rights For The 'Select' Few Chosen
Ones the Liberals Deemed To Be "Worthy" of
Human Rights and Equality Before the Law.

true equality for all of god's children
and injustice and indifference for none ~ RHF
.

There ARE equal rights for all in California. ALL men have a right to
marry a woman. ALL women have a right to marry a man. NO man has a
right to marry another man. NO woman has a right to marry another
woman. Where is this not equal rights? The rights are the same for
everyone.

Men and women do not have the same rights to begin with, and they
shouldn't. A girl should not have a right to join the boys scouts. A
boy should not have a right to join the girl scouts.

When will these rediuclous arguments stop!

Children do not have the same rights as adults. A bike rider does not
have the same rights as a licensed driver. A blind person does not
have the same rights to drive a car as a person with good vision.

Come on now. We could go on and on and on with this.

The institution of marriage has been between a man and woman since the
beginning of time. It is wrong to force a chiristian pastor to marry
two men or two women together when it goes against their own beliefs.

- This whole topic has nothing to do with civil rights or equal rights.

BpnJ,

And there is the foundation of our disagreement to me the whole topic
comes down to "Civil Rights" -aka- "Equal Rights" and "Religious Rights"
-aka- Religious Freedom : All In-Balance and All Equal : Meaning NO
Religious Individual or Group would be FORCE-BY-LAW to Marry any
Individuals that as a Matter of Religion is against the Traditions and
Tenets of their Beliefs/Faith. Including those who 'practice' Polygamy
Marriage.

EXAMPLES :
* A Born-Again-Christian Couple could not Force-by-Law a Jewish Rabbi to
Marry Them.
* A Mixed-Race Couple could not Force-by-Law a White-Aryan Church Leader
to Marry Them.
* A Jewish Couple could not Force-by-Law a Catholic Priest to Marry Them.
* A Same-Gender Couple could not Force-by-Law any Church to Marry Them.
* A Buddhist Couple could not Force-by-Law a Muslim Imam to Marry Them.
* A Muslim Couple could not Force-by-Law a Christian Pastor to Marry Them.
* A Polygamy Multi-Couple could not Force-by-Law a Protestant Pastor to
Marry Them.
*
HOWEVER -if- a Same-Gender Couple is Married in a Unitarian Universalist
Church by a Pastor who want to Marry Them : SO BE IT [.]
AND -if- a Same-Gender Couple is Married in a Civil Ceremony by a County
Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Ordained Minister, ETC : THEN SO BE IT [.]
PLUS -if- a Polygamy Multi-Couple is Married in a Church/Mosque that
allows and practices Polygamy as a matter of Their Faith : Then They Are
All Jointly Married Legally Under-the-Law : SO BE IT TOO [.]

It About Equality Before The Law -coupled-with- Freedom of Religion ~RHF

Dave wrote:
wrote:

The institution of marriage has been between a man and woman since the
beginning of time. It is wrong to force a chiristian pastor to marry
two men or two women together when it goes against their own beliefs.

This whole topic has nothing to do with civil rights or equal rights.

- Marriage is a ridiculous cult practice and anybody who wants to
- participate has too much time on their hands.

Dave -proclaims- Marriage is a Ridiculous Cult Practice


California officially sanctions Domestic Partnership, which conveys all
the "benefits" of the cult ritual marriage (except for the IRS joint
filing status).

BDK wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:47 pm, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:59 -0500, Bob Campbell wrote:
wrote in message
...

Yesterday 89% of Missouri voters approved an amendment to their State
constitution making English the official language.
Now if only states like Florida, Texas and California would do the same.
Why?
For the unity of a nation. That's why you imbecile.
How does this promote unity? Seems to me it's doing the opposite.



- Why do religious people always want to involve
- themselves with other people's sex lives?
- Why would anyone give a **** about gays getting
- married, unless it's a shotgun wedding,
- and you're one of the participants.

Rephrase It A Bit :

Why do Gay People always want to involve themselves
with other people's Religious Beliefs {Lives} ?

Why would any Gay Person give a **** about Religious
People getting Married ? {According to their Religion.}

D'Oh! - Respect the Rights of Gays [LGBT People] -and-
Give Equal Respect to the Rights of Religious Peoples.

you can not promote the rights of one individual or
group by abrogating the rights of another individual
or group - rights are rights ~ RHF

Shortwave radio enthusiasts have a right to enjoy a newsgroup
which was established for them and is supposed to be dedicated to
shortwave radio information.

And they have a right to do so without wading through all the off
topic garbage you post and it isn't incumbent upon them to filter
obnoxious morons like you out, also many don't have the capability to
do so.

Start behaving like a responsible adult and filter yourself by posting
your nonsense in the appropriate newsgroups.