Jan 06
Loading...
IMPORTANT :: YOU MUST SAVE THE FILE AS ".FLV"
Change the file name from "get_video" to "video.flv"
William Tyndale was burned alive in the 16th century for printing the English Bible. This was the "tolerance" for religion in England that pushed boatload after boatload of Englishman to the eastern seaboard of the United States, seeking freedom.
Thomas JeffersonJefferson swore eternal hostility toward any form of tyranny upon the mind of man:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Religious Liberty was of the highest order and concern to these colonists, and the very first of their spelled out "Bill of Rights" reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, the First Amendment was to keep the damned hand of government tyranny off of religion, for "Congress shall make no law" concerning religion, and neither shall the damned Soviet Courts in the United States today. Prop 8 was not an "anti-gay" measure, but a 1st Amendment measure to protect religion from the wicked courts who are hostile and seek an inroad at slaughtering the First Amendment. Judges the ilk of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri with his infamous "extermination order" against the Mormon's are ready and anxious to criminalize religion if they can do so.
An example of these most wicked courts. Recently, the Soviet US District Court in San Francisco ruled that "parental rights are severed" when a child crosses the threshold of the school. Where did this Stalin/Mao/Hitlarian ruling come from? Straight from a tyrannical hell, a US Court that is as un-American as anything you hear of today. People 30 years ago would have laughed you to scorn if you would have predicted a court ruling could take place in America that followed the Marxist ideology of the USSR. But, here we are. Such Soviet rulings have been made and will continue to be made. That ruling enforced a plank of the Communist Manifesto.
Respecting religion and the "free exercise thereof," churches absolutely must defend against these damned, wicked courts who now "make law" which the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from doing, regarding religion.
I hope, in a nutshell, this explains the real issue. What a damned lie to say this is "hate filled" by churches. Churches did not start this battle, but they shall be destroyed if they don't stand up and defend the 1st Amendment. It is their defense against hate filled judges who will begin criminalizing churches as soon as they can get an inroad to do so. Marriage as defined as a "man and a woman" is a buffer against such tyranny upon the 1st Amendment. Gay people can have every right and do so under the law. The only difference is their "domestic unions" are not given the legal definition to be a "marriage" which protects churches from a ruthless tyrannical government hell bent upon legislating it into oblivion by the Secularist High Priests of the State Religion of Secularism---the Judges.
Mormon's, more than any other people on earth today, perhaps, ought to know what governments can do, for in the 19th Century, the US Federal government sought to "destroy the LDS Church as an institution" as Gordon B. Hinckley expressed a while back. It is true, murder of leadership, their imprisonment, lootings, rape, robbings, plunder, seizure of assets, burning of temples, shutting down of temples, "extermination orders," it's all been had before, and is prophesied to transpire again. We're fools to let it come about easily by not seeking to ensure the 1st Amendment is of force, keeping judges damned hands from "making law" against religion and "the free exercise thereof." Thus, those crying that this is an unfair fight at "denying rights" from gay couples are liars, and the best line sophistry sold in the 2008 election year.
http://www.awakeandarise.org/article/lds_targeted.htm
Tags:
Leave a Reply
January 6th, 2009 at 22:28:31 WarAPeace proclaims, "Man you are REALLY trying to avoid adressing the issue." Quite the contrary, I'm trying to engage you in some constructive debate but it is you who are doing the avoiding. It is you being dysfunctional. Look over again what I asked from you on the subject you brought up in my last comment. "Please give just one best example of the "right" infringed." Then we can discuss it. If I despised you would I be showing you this much respect by attempting to engage you?
January 6th, 2009 at 22:51:30 Man you are REALLY trying to avoid adressing the issue. This isexactly what proves my point, you don't care about other people's rights, according to you the only rights that matter are gays. You don't care about equality under the law, you only care about "MORE RIGHTS FOR GAYS". And we both know any example I give your not going to address, you'll ignore the content as per usual and insit again and again that everyone else is wrong and your are right, no compromise, no descussion.
January 6th, 2009 at 23:14:29 WarAPeace thinks "it screws everyone else over due to the anti descrimination laws that become applied in this case and infringe upon the 1st amendments." Do you understand the meaning of equality under the law? Well if you're being discriminatory and the 1st Amendment can't help you... what have you learned? Do you expect other people and their rights should take a back seat whenever religion BELIEVES it's rights are infringed? Please give just one best example of the "right" infringed.
January 6th, 2009 at 23:37:28 So your agurment is to point me to a guy who for 5 minutes basically says over and over marrage is different from domestic partnership. Duh, it is different, because the situation in different, You want to group it in with something which it is not, no matter how you want it to be, and in the process, it screws everyone else over due to the anti descrimination laws that become applied in this case and infringe upon the 1st amendments. It's a no win situation. The method your using is flawed.
January 7th, 2009 at 00:00:27 If it's true it makes no difference.
January 7th, 2009 at 00:23:26 There you go again warapeace, speaking for the enemy.
January 7th, 2009 at 00:46:25 I agree, people with better hearts and minds then yours will actually confront the issues and make sure everyones rights are respected, while you keep on demanding only gay rights be respected and anyone else be damned.
January 7th, 2009 at 01:09:24 Marriage is about more than the excuses your kind make to restrict and deny marriage to others. People with hearts and minds better than yours will use the Constitution as a guide to solve this prop 8 affront to civil rights. You might try to read the Constitution.
January 7th, 2009 at 01:32:23 Wrong low brow, some gay couples 'adopt' kids, or have invetro fertilizations, and all others are outside their current relationship and in a hetero one, thus in and of itself, it yields nothing, thus it is different from a hetero couple, thus is fundamentally different. You just try to grasp at straws, trying to make the issue as simple as your little brain can make it, and ignoring facts, logic, and proof. Sorry if those big thoughts and ideas make your head hurt.
January 7th, 2009 at 01:55:22 WarAPeace attempts "That makes your unions fundamentally different from a married hetero couple." Fundamentally wrong in several ways. Some gay folks have kids. Some before, some during the relationship. The facts never work out the way you want them to 'war'. But you just need them too don't you.
January 7th, 2009 at 02:18:21 And this is where I say, hah, you have to group everyone who disagrees with you into a religious group so you have something to target, FAIL! And how ignorant are you, let me put it in terms you can undersatand 'When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much..." The birds and bees doesn't work with gays, you don't have to consider children at all in your unions, fact, hard true fact. That makes your unions fundamentally different from a married hetero couple.
January 7th, 2009 at 02:41:20 WarAPeace "gay union is completely different from marriage so it should be treated completely different then marriage."... "Your fetish is the same as any other, it yeilds nothing in and of itself"..."The definition is different, and changeing it changes it fundamentally, and screws everyone over in the process." My-my-my. How arrogant and wrong. Do you have a religion? Mormon, catholic, evangelist? To which faith do we owe your delusion and defective logic? Or is it just you?
January 7th, 2009 at 03:04:19 I agree marriage is not civil union, gay union is completely different from marriage so it should be treated completely different then marriage. I can be entitled with rights equal to marriage, but it is not marriage. Your fetish is the same as any other, it yeilds nothing in and of itself, so fundamentally it is different, and nothing you can do can change that. The definition is different, and changeing it changes it fundamentally, and screws everyone over in the process.
January 7th, 2009 at 03:27:18 WarAPeace "So your using an estate planning firm to try and make your argument? They do not represent the state of california,..." Civil union is not marriage no matter how California graciously tries to help. Federal DOMA cruelly drives home this point in more than 1000 ways. Since you want to see things your way try seeing this; youtube video "Same Sex Marriage / civil Union" username davidallenlaw. There's more to it but you get the idea... if you want to.
January 7th, 2009 at 03:50:17 So your using an estate planning firm to try and make your argument? They do not represent the state of california, they are a practicing firm, and your 'quote' doesn't even show up in the same sex section, so now you are mis-quoting, a site to try and make yourself sound in the right.
January 7th, 2009 at 04:13:16 Then that's your families problem and choices, not the law. People have freesom to chose what they believe, you however, wish to take that right away and force people to accept you, rather then gain acceptance on your own. And people from every group get murdered every day, you just choose to make every gay murdered a sudden martyr for your cause. Descrimination laws protect you, just as they protect blacks, but blacks still get murdered for being black, so your argument isn't even relavent.
January 7th, 2009 at 04:36:15 (2 of 2) Pinkerton, Doppelt & Associates In essence, these expanded rights parallel the rights of married couples in many respects however not in others and these differences are significant and have been a point of contention during the last decade as seen in the marriages which occurred in San Francisco, California and then were declared void. MARRIAGE equality will not be realized until the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)is eliminated and all states recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
January 7th, 2009 at 04:59:14 (1 of 2) WarAPeace "Wrong, based in fact, look at the family code and you would see it officially accords you the same rights and responsabilities as a married couple." You mean California? see (2 of 2)
January 7th, 2009 at 05:22:13 Dyoni1 "One: Your not second class citizens, the same laws that protect any group from descrimination apply to gays, so stop playing the victim when clearly your not." Maybe you can tell us avoid "playing the victim" when our family rejects because of the ugly untrue lies the church puts in our family's hearts and minds. Do we sue the church? We're killed regularly even in San Francisco because we're different. Yup... dead transexual is playing the victim. It all goes back to the churches!
January 7th, 2009 at 05:45:12 WarAPeace "extending to education codes in school that require marriage to be taught which violates parental rights to teach children their values." And you blame queer folks for this? What is it you teach kids about gay or otherwise queer folks?
January 7th, 2009 at 06:08:11 "And I see from your previous comments that you don't accept referances," Wrong. I post references, why not accept them? What I post in comments to videos can be found in a google search. If possible I include a file name. Like... Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics (file name saycrle.pdf) Or... google search--> dailykos (update w/ video X2 + Darcy Burner) Prop 8: DEVASTATING internal memo from the LDS Church
January 7th, 2009 at 06:31:10 Dyoni1 "They didn't address any issues that have been proven fact, and your doing the same now. " Please..... share. be specific.
January 7th, 2009 at 06:54:09 And I see from your previous comments that you don't accept referances, so your request is hypocritical in nature. So rather then waste my time on 20 comments listing the various sources, I'll leave you to denouce everything as you always have, and always will. Any idot you reads your comments can see your closed minded nature and your presense here is only to try and make yourself look smart, at which you fail miserably.
January 7th, 2009 at 07:17:08 The first amendment: specifically freedom of speech and religious liberty. Your forceing social acceptance via the law which makes it illegal for a person not to accept or acknowledge gay marriage in any private buisness, colledge, or adoption agency be it for religious belief or otherwise, extending to education codes in school that require marriage to be taught which violates parental rights to teach children their values.
January 7th, 2009 at 07:40:07 One: Your not second class citizens, the same laws that protect any group from descrimination apply to gays, so stop playing the victim when clearly your not. Two: If anyone knows how to make a ignorant arguement, it's NO supporters, since all they did in campaigning was call everyone bigots and liars. They didn't address any issues that have been proven fact, and your doing the same now. Three: IF you go to court, you will have to address these issues, so I urge you to go.