Dems Regain Control Of New Hampshire House, Dash Hopes Of Gay Marriage Foes

  • metta

    Posts: 39078

    Nov 18, 2012 9:32 PM GMT
    Dems Regain Control Of New Hampshire House, Dash Hopes Of Gay Marriage Foes

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=13587&MediaType=1&Category=26

    "Democrats went from 104 seats to 221 in the 400-member chamber on November 6. Bates was among the Republican casualties." icon_eek.gificon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2012 10:15 PM GMT
    This highlights why all the voting on marriage, whether by electorate or legislator is bullshit, reducing rights which ought to be recognized as endemic to privileges enjoyed merely at the pleasure of others.

    We require just one guiding principal to be spelled out, recognized and applied:

    “all Humans regardless of gender or sexual orientation are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

    Certainly that's what our founding father's meant. Only they opted for brevity, ever since bady misunderstood.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Nov 19, 2012 1:46 AM GMT
    metta8 saidDems Regain Control Of New Hampshire House, Dash Hopes Of Gay Marriage Foes

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=13587&MediaType=1&Category=26

    "Democrats went from 104 seats to 221 in the 400-member chamber on November 6. Bates was among the Republican casualties." icon_eek.gificon_biggrin.gif


    More great news! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 2:13 AM GMT
    theantijock saidThis highlights why all the voting on marriage, whether by electorate or legislator is bullshit, reducing rights which ought to be recognized as endemic to privileges enjoyed merely at the pleasure of others.

    We require just one guiding principal to be spelled out, recognized and applied:

    “all Humans regardless of gender or sexual orientation are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

    Certainly that's what our founding father's meant. Only they opted for brevity, ever since bady misunderstood.

    It doesnt even have to do with any Creator. If you're a citizen of a country, you get to participate in the functions of that country. One part of the citizenry can't tell another part, they can't participate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 2:19 AM GMT
    theantijock saidThis highlights why all the voting on marriage, whether by electorate or legislator is bullshit, reducing rights which ought to be recognized as endemic to privileges enjoyed merely at the pleasure of others.

    We require just one guiding principal to be spelled out, recognized and applied:

    “all Humans regardless of gender or sexual orientation are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

    Certainly that's what our founding father's meant. Only they opted for brevity, ever since bady misunderstood.


    Except most of the founding fathers probably wouldve voted against same sex marriage and wouldve expressed that in the constitution had it come up. People went to prison for that kind of thing. But,gay rights were hardly an important issue at the time. They were far more concerned with establishing an independent country than who can marry who.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Nov 19, 2012 2:22 AM GMT
    Glad to hear it.. I'm still amazed how New Hampshire went from a "republican state" a few years ago (reliably republican) to a toss up leaning democratic....

    icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 5:12 AM GMT
    Caslon22000 saidIt doesnt even have to do with any Creator. If you're a citizen of a country, you get to participate in the functions of that country. One part of the citizenry can't tell another part, they can't participate.


    I get your drift but do not believe we are at cross currents.

    Creator isn't my word, it was just kind of in the original phrasing which I thought to minimally edit while modernizing. But in this context I would look at it as a reinforcing though possibly albeit a redundant metaphor for unalienable. Not seen as redundancy, it could serve as metaphor signifying from where arises the unalienable. The phraseology doesn't have to be seen as religious but simply as the way they spoke in that day. To my ear it still translates pretty well without being too offensive even to atheist. Even in science things create things.

    I could have edited that further but it starts to sound silly: "...endowed by the big bang, by our very existence, with certain unalienable rights..."

    It just seems to lose some of its poetry and thereby maybe even its power. I don't see any reason at all why we can't start talking for God too. Everyone else seems to be doing it. God is not just their hand puppet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
    ...encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms...

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    —United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 5:25 AM GMT
    AeroNalex saidExcept most of the founding fathers probably wouldve voted against same sex marriage and wouldve expressed that in the constitution had it come up. People went to prison for that kind of thing. But,gay rights were hardly an important issue at the time. They were far more concerned with establishing an independent country than who can marry who.


    These were men who considered themselves enlightened but at that time consciousness was only what it was and they only had what facts they had. Now imagine if minds like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had PBS on the TV and National Geographic by the toilet. Even without modern psychology, still 100 years away, they eventually figured out that slavery was not such a great idea. It's hard for me to imagine that if they had the information, the awareness, the consciousness, that they wouldn't have done right by it. And if we follow their thinking in things we know they got right then it would follow that we'd have our rights, right now.

    RIGHTS RIGHT NOW

    There would be no delay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 7:42 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    AeroNalex saidExcept most of the founding fathers probably wouldve voted against same sex marriage and wouldve expressed that in the constitution had it come up. People went to prison for that kind of thing. But,gay rights were hardly an important issue at the time. They were far more concerned with establishing an independent country than who can marry who.


    These were men who considered themselves enlightened but at that time consciousness was only what it was and they only had what facts they had. Now imagine if minds like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had PBS on the TV and National Geographic by the toilet. Even without modern psychology, still 100 years away, they eventually figured out that slavery was not such a great idea. It's hard for me to imagine that if they had the information, the awareness, the consciousness, that they wouldn't have done right by it. And if we follow their thinking in things we know they got right then it would follow that we'd have our rights, right now.

    RIGHTS RIGHT NOW

    There would be no delay.


    I think you are wrong, but oh well. Also if you are referring to Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation, you'll be enlightened to know that he only emancipated slaves south of the Mason Dixon line. All slaves still held north of that line were not freed until much later. Freedmen in northern slave states were easily forced back into slavery in one form or another. There were also slaveholders in the south prior to the Proclamation who freed their slaves based on moral principle, such as my own family. Yet we still fought as proud confederates in the Civil War. Why? Because the War Between the States was not about slavery. It was more about Abraham Lincoln revoking the rights of those Confederate states while preserving the same right in the North. If we are not to be treated equally, then we will not be part of it. And don't even get me started on Thomas Jefferson.

    The moral of the story is, the founding fathers made enormous errors of judgement in the past, I don't believe that their state of 'enlightenment' would allow them to see past the "facts" of the time. Gay was considered through and through to be a mortal sin, and so the constitution could have easily spelled out exactly how marriage works in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2012 5:19 PM GMT
    AeroNalex saidI think you are wrong, but oh well. Also if you are referring to Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation, you'll be enlightened to know that he only emancipated slaves south of the Mason Dixon line. All slaves still held north of that line were not freed until much later. Freedmen in northern slave states were easily forced back into slavery in one form or another. There were also slaveholders in the south prior to the Proclamation who freed their slaves based on moral principle, such as my own family. Yet we still fought as proud confederates in the Civil War. Why? Because the War Between the States was not about slavery. It was more about Abraham Lincoln revoking the rights of those Confederate states while preserving the same right in the North. If we are not to be treated equally, then we will not be part of it. And don't even get me started on Thomas Jefferson.

    The moral of the story is, the founding fathers made enormous errors of judgement in the past, I don't believe that their state of 'enlightenment' would allow them to see past the "facts" of the time. Gay was considered through and through to be a mortal sin, and so the constitution could have easily spelled out exactly how marriage works in this country.


    Your information might be accurate and easily googled or, as you seem to have done, even studied, but beyond facts is the working of the mind and you have to a little careful when applying criticisms based upon what we know today and how we think today to what & how previous generations might have known and thought, particularly if you are then going to project how they might have later, beyond their era, incorporated this knowledge and applied these thoughts.

    In the value of knowledge thread, another young man recently stipulated that cavemen thought practically identically to how we think today. While there may be some similarlies particularly in the example he cited, most certainly we've experienced some evolution of consciousness in the few years since, such that translating how they thought then to how we think now requires transposition (interpretting the intents of then, given the realizations of now) because not all values (ie not so much ethics but moreso the x's & y's) remain the same. Otherwise it would be like taking ice from cold to hot water and expecting to observe it appearing & behaving the same.

    Enlightened is a relative term. Enlightened for that period. Even nirvana is nothing but a waypoint along the evolution of consciousness such that we can't even consider with our minds today what thinking might project beyond that point and yet we do have concepts of being enlightened today just as they had yesterday. Will the thinking beyond nirvana judge us as harshly as you enjoy judging your priors who did not have your privileges?

    "There exists an obvious fact that seems utterly moral; namely, that a man is always a prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them".~~Albert Camus