Bush calls for constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage

Bush going to yale and all was a fact that he and i are different about. you could have left my initial post alone but chose not to. so i added to it
 
According to columnist Robert Jones, legislation which criminalizes same-sex sexual behavior dates back almost five centuries in Britain and four centuries in the USA. Leviticus 20:13 from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), reads in part: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death." This verse was "adopted into legislation and enforced by the colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut." 1,2

In his concurring decision in the Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) case, Supreme Court Justice Burgher wrote: "...the proscriptions against sodomy have very 'ancient roots.' Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law....During the English Reformation when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. Blackstone described 'the infamous crime against nature' as an offense of 'deeper malignity' than rape, a heinous act 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature,' and 'a crime not fit to be named." ...To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."

Some major events in Britain and the U.S.:

Prior to 1533 CE: Anal sex in Britain was considered a religious infraction and was punished within ecclesiastical courts. It was not considered to be a civil offense against the state.
1533: A British "Buggery Statute" was enacted. It defined sodomy as sexual activity between two men or as bestiality involving an animal and either a man or woman.
1624: In the colony of Virginia, Captain Richard Cornish was charged under the British Buggery Statute with having raped his male servant. He was found guilty. Both the perpetrator and the victim were hanged.
1628: The British jurist Sir Edward Coke described same-sex behavior as "against the ordinance of the Creator and order of nature." He suggested that the usual execution techniques of burning alive or burying alive be replaced by simple hanging.
1629: "Five beastly Sodomiticall boys" confessed to homosexual activity. They were probably hanged, because Massachusetts law called for the death penalty for persons over 14 years of age who committed sodomy.
1631: In the first reported trial for homosexual sex in England, the Earl of Castlehaven was convicted of sodomy with his male servants. Because of his rank, he was beheaded.
1641: Sodomy became a capital crime in Massachusetts, but only between males.
1642: Connecticut included sodomy among its 12 capital crimes.
1646: Jan Creoli was executed in New Netherland (present-day New York) for sodomizing a ten-year old boy. His victim was "only" flogged.
1647: Rhode Island follows the lead of Massachusetts.
1656: New Haven passes a law making sodomy punishable by execution for both men and women.
1660: Jan Quisthout vander Linde was executed for sodomy. His victim, a boy, was whipped.
1662: Rhode Island passed a sodomy law.
1682: Pennsylvania, a Quaker colony, became the first jurisdiction in America to make sodomy a non-capital offence. Punishment was in the form of whipping, a fine equal to 1/3 of the offender's estate, and six months of hard labor.
1700: Pennsylvania amended its sodomy punishment to life imprisonment or castration.
1712: South Carolina adopted the British buggery law.
1718: The sodomy law in Pennsylvania was revised to make it a capital offense.
1718: New Hampshire passed its first sodomy law.
1719: Delaware passed a sodomy law.
1776: Maryland adopted English common law, which included the criminalization of sodomy.
1784: Georgia also adopted English common law.
1785: Massachusetts passed a sodomy law.
1787: New York passed a sodomy law.
1790: Pennsylvania and South Carolina each passed a sodomy law.
1791: The original 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights. By that time, they all treated sodomy as a criminal offense. Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina had specific sodomy laws in place. Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia had adopted either the common law of England or specific English statues; both criminalized sodomy. "Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later." 3,4

In the years following independence from Britain, the death penalty was gradually removed from the former colonial laws. However, sexual behavior between persons of the same gender remained a criminal act throughout the U.S. until the 1960s.

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. It guaranteed equal treatment for all persons under the law. At that time all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. Subsequently, all of the states eventually outlawed sodomy.


References:
Gary Comstock, "Unrepentant, self-affirming, practicing: Lesbian/Bisexual/Gay People within organized religion," Continuum, (1996), Page 1. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
Louis Crompton, "Homosexuals and the Death Penalty in Colonial America." Journal of Homosexuality v. 1 no. 3 (1976).
Timeline of homosexual history," at: http://www.geocities.com/
The text of the Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick is online at FindLaw. See Footnote 5 of:
Click to expand...

Religious Tolerence dot org

thanks to RM from OCN for finding this gem
 
I was going to go into a rather long, and boring, speech about the seperation of church and state, the rights of the individual, and the definition of the word marriage, but I then realized that, over a span of time, the Constitution can be changed , the definitions of words change, and ideas about how society should be change. The right of the indivdual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the only constant in our country...as long as no laws are broken. This is the meat of the matter. If existing laws impinge upon non-criminal activities which interfere with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, are they not to be challenged? Are there not legal ways that they may be removed? If those laws are to be changed, then, by all means, vote, sue, or band together to petition to change the law. Civil disobedience is for the general population when all other means fail. Take a look at the link I put up for the Constitution. That amendment is a promise of freedom, and it's inherent rights and responsibilities. If someone moves to block those freedoms, then it becomes incumbent on the general population to file grievances as a first step, and civil disobedience as a last resort.
 
yes there are legal ways for it to be removed but there is a problem with that. you need to somehow get attention to it. protests peacfully help since it wil also draw attention to it. but they feel their freedoms are being blocked and as you said


That amendment is a promise of freedom, and it's inherent rights and responsibilities. If someone moves to block those freedoms, then it becomes incumbent on the general population to file grievances as a first step, and civil disobedience as a last resort
Click to expand...

now they have filed their grievances havent they? and nothing. isnt that why they are doing this?
 
Is it really that hard to understand?

One person enter the City Hall. They venture their way to the Marriage Licenses R Us window & get refused. They then turn over the supporting documentation to thier attorney who immediately files a lawsuit against the (City, Country, State, Federal) government.

We are now in the legal system. It's being fought as drawn out in the law.

Once a Mayor (Governeor, President) declares a law not likeable & suggests (demands, persudes) the citizens to break the law we enter into anachy.

Using Mayor Gavins line of reasoning, why not murder (rape, assault, rob) someone. The law may be unjust & can simply be ignored.
 
freako104 said:
yes there are legal ways for it to be removed but there is a problem with that. you need to somehow get attention to it. protests peacfully help since it wil also draw attention to it. but they feel their freedoms are being blocked and as you said




now they have filed their grievances havent they? and nothing. isnt that why they are doing this?
Click to expand...

Actually, freako, they haven't filed any grievances that I'm aware of at all. If you can point out any court documents, or any laws that were amended, I'd be happy to read them and make changes to my arguments. Looks to me like they just bypassed the legal avenues altogether.
 
Using Mayor Gavins line of reasoning, why not murder (rape, assault, rob) someone. The law may be unjust & can simply be ignored.
Click to expand...



that is total bullshit and you know it. the laws target homosexuals. how is that just? the crimes you showed are crimes against humanity. they cannot be ignored since someone suffers as a result of those crimes.




gato: I will look into it later today after lunch or soemthing and see if I find anything. I ahd thoguth they did file their grievances btu you maybe right
 
It is not bullshit. Mayor Any Twosome Newsom said ignore the law. It does nor matter what law it is. It just hurts your fragile sensibilities to look at truth.

He told his population, and those outside his realm, to IGNORE the law.
 
it is and you damn well know it. look at what the law targets. it is discriminating. how the hell is that just?
 
in their eyes it does. it is discriminatory and makes them unequal. they dont have the right to be married? thats BS. they are fighting an unjust law. it would be different if they fought the laws against rape, abuse,murder,assault etc
 
freako104 said:
in their eyes it does. it is discriminatory and makes them unequal. they dont have the right to be married? thats BS. they are fighting an unjust law. it would be different if they fought the laws against rape, abuse,murder,assault etc
Click to expand...

What is the main reason for marriage?
 
freako, I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face & you still won't understand. I'll still repeat the same thing over & over again because it's much bigger than one persons ideology.

If one law can be ignored, so can any other law.
 
You mean like poll tax laws? Or other notoriously dicriminatory laws in our past? Or what about run of the mill reasonable laws like speeding. Do those people who drive above the speed limit justify murder? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Have you ever murdered? How come we are picking and choosing which laws will lead to slippery slope wholescale chaos and anarchy?
 
If you have a problem with a law, take it to court. If you break the law, just or unjust, you are a criminal.
 
what about those that fought laws by breaking them in the past?
Rosa Parks comes to mind
Martin Luther King JR
both fought unjust laws in the same way. now were tehy justified?
 
freako104 said:
what about those that fought laws by breaking them in the past?
Rosa Parks comes to mind
Martin Luther King JR
both fought unjust laws in the same way. now were tehy justified?
Click to expand...

Martin Luther King Jr. fought for the enforcement of existing rights as guaranteed under the constitution, and as a last resort. Remember...there were several court cases before MLK started out. Rosa Parks, OTOH, broke no laws. Only the policy of the segregated south. For those who do not know, Rosa Parks also had issues before that time with the driver of that same bus. They fought unjust laws, to be sure, but not until they exhausted other routes to get things changed. Until you find me something on the legal challenges to gay marriage bans, they are nothing more than common criminals.
 
Another glaring difference between MLK, Miss Parks and Newsom is

THEY WEREN'T MAYORS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top