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

wrote:

You lost, get over it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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 ?